摘要
不作为犯的作为义务来源问题在中外刑法理论中虽然探讨了很长时间,但至今仍没有达成共识,因而这一问题尚有很大的理论探讨空间。不作为犯可以划分为纯正不作为犯和不纯正不作为犯两种类型。由于纯正不作为犯和不纯正不作为犯本身的区别,两者的作为义务来源也应有所区别。纯正不作为犯的作为义务来源应具有法定性,而不纯正不作为犯的作为义务来源应在纯正不作为犯的作为义务来源之外,通过解答所谓前行为保证人类型问题予以最终确定,因而其作为义务来源只能限于特定的职务或业务行为和特定的法律行为。
The duty origin in criminal omissions, a historical issue in the theoretic discussions about criminal law at home and abroad, remains to be controversial and demands further theoretical explorations. Crimes committed by omissions can be divided into two types： pure omission and non-pure criminal omission. The differences between these two types of crimes mean different origins of duty to act： the duty to act in the former type of crime should be stipulated by the law, whereas that in the latter type comes from other origins than the law and should usually be assigned through solving the problem of guarantor of prior behavior, thus being confined to particular professions, positions and legal behaviors.
出处
《南京师大学报（社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2012年第1期51-57,共7页
Journal of Nanjing Normal University(Social Science Edition)
关键词
不作为犯
作为义务
前行为保证人
先行行为
crimes committed by omission
duty to act
guarantor of prior behavior
prior behavior
