摘要
尽管我国实务尚未明确将被害人自陷风险当作排除行为人不法的事由,但学说已经开始接纳这种观点,并主张将被害人自陷风险区分为"自我危殆化"和"他者危殆化"。德国实务在"海洛因注射器案"中提出了自我危殆化,并在"加速测试案"中主张用危险支配说来区分自我危殆化和他者危殆化。但从区分的必要性来看,自我危殆化和他者危殆化之间的差异并不是必然的。从区分的可行性来看,无论是危险支配标准还是其他标准,它们都无法成为合适的区分标准。从被害人自陷风险的基本模型上来看,只要行为人过失地对危险进程作出贡献,他就不是不可罚的"参与他人自我负责的自我危殆化",而是"以正犯身份参与的他者危殆化"。
Although jurisdiction of China does not regard victims’self-endangering as a reason to exclude the perpetrator’s punishability,the doctrine has begun to accept this view,and advocates a distinction between"Selbstgefaehrdung"and"Fremdgefaehrdung".This distinction can be traced back to German jurisdiction and doctrine.German jurisdiction put forward the concept of victims’Selbstgefaehrdung in the"Heroin Injector Case",and advocated the use of risk control theory to distinguish between Selbstgefaehrdung and Fremdgefaehrdung in the"accelerated test case".From the point of view of the necessity of distinction,the difference between Selbstgefaehrdung and Fremdgefaehrdung is not inevitable;from the perspective of the feasibility of distinction,no matter whether it is the risk control standard or other distinguishing standards,they cannot be appropriate distinguish criteria.Therefore,from the perspective of the basic model of victims’self-endangering,as long as the perpetrator negligently contributes to the dangerous process,he is not unpunishable"Teilnahme in the Selbstgefaehrdung",but"Taeterschaft of the Fremdgefaehrdung".
作者
王芳凯
WANG Fangkai(Peking UniversityLaw School,Beijing 100871,China)
出处
《河南警察学院学报》
2021年第2期63-73,共11页
Journal of Henan Police College
