摘要
对象错误与打击错误在隔离犯场合如何区分,虽然疑难,但有必要。理论上根据视觉感知、内心感知、孤立的时间地点及危险流的时间阶段等标准区分两种错误,均存在诸多缺陷,其中显著缺陷是混淆了故意行为危险流与过失行为危险流。二者的实质区分在于危险流是否发生实质偏离。对象错误中,危险流未发生实质偏离,导致结果的实际危险流仍是初始故意行为危险流,对象错误实质是构成要件范畴外的动机错误。打击错误中,危险流发生实质偏离,导致结果的实际危险流已是过失行为危险流。对象错误与某些存在动机错误的不确定故意情形易被混淆,区别在于产生动机错误的原因不同。前者的原因是行为人对行为对象的身份特征存在主观认识错误,而后者无此原因。
How to distinguish object error and strike error in the case of gap offence is quite difficult, but necessary. The- oretically, when these two errors are distinguished according to the standard of visual perception, inner perception, isolated time and space, and the time phasing of dangerous process, etc., it results in some defects. One of the notable deficiencies is that it blurs the danger of intentional act with the danger of negligent act. However, whether there is a deviation of dangerous process is essential to distinguishing the difference between the two errors. Regarding object error, there is no deviation in dan- gerous process. Dangerous process which results in a real harmful consequence remains the danger of intentional conduct, for object error actually is intentional error without referring to constitutive requirements. However, in strike error, the deviation of dangerous process happened, and dangerous process which causes a real harmful consequence is the danger of negligent act. Object error tends to be mixed up with uncertain intentional situation of some motivation errors. However, the difference between the two is determined by different reasons which caused motivation error. The reason of the motivation error of the former is that doer failed to recognize the identification of object because of his subjective mistake, however, the latter has nothing to do with this reason.
出处
《法学评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第4期177-187,共11页
Law Review
关键词
对象错误
打击错误
隔离犯
因果流程的偏离
概括故意
Object Error
Strike Error
Gap Offence
Deviation of Causal Process
General Intent
