摘要
在民刑法中防卫过当标准之争背后,隐藏着诸多基础观念层面的深深裂痕。新旧刑法关于防卫过当的实体性内涵实质是一致的,即便从与紧急避险相协调的角度看亦是如此。把新法条文中的有关“明显”和“重大”等理解为注意规定,并非画蛇添足,尤其不应把民刑法在价值考量和功能取向上的差异作为民刑法防卫过当二元论的内在根据。学界对“民刑法防卫过当一元论”优势的质疑难以成立,对民事司法实务中防卫人因造成不法侵害人轻伤乃至轻微伤而被判防卫过当的不当做法亦应当否定。二元论之所以在指导案例中沦为空谈并在实务中将检察监督置于尴尬境地,是因为未深入分析防卫权行使的现实境况而机械套用“违法与犯罪二元论”并强行界分所致。
Behind the dispute over the standard of excessive defense between Civil Law and Criminal Law, there are many deep rifts at the level of basic concepts.The substantive connotation of excessive defense in the old and new Criminal Laws is essentially the same, even from the perspective of coordinating with emergency avoidance.It is not superfluous to interpret the “obvious” and “major” in the new law as provisions for attention.In particular, the differences in the value consideration and functional orientation of Civil Law and Criminal Law should not be regarded as the inherent basis for the dualism of excessive defense in Civil Law and Criminal Law.It is difficult for the academic circle to question the advantages of the “monism of excessive defense in Civil Law and Criminal law”.And the improper practice of defenders who are convicted of excessive defense for causing minor or even slight injuries to unlawful offenders in civil judicial practice should also be denied.The reason why dualism has become empty talk in Guiding Cases and put procuratorial supervision in an embarrassing situation in practice is because the “dualism of illegality and crime” is mechanically applied and a division is forced without an in-depth analysis of the actual situation of the exercise of the right to defense.
作者
陈航
范春
Chen Hang;Fan Chun(Lanzhou University,Lanzhou Gansu 730000,China)
出处
《辽宁公安司法管理干部学院学报》
2022年第2期93-104,共12页
Journal of Liaoning Administrators College of Police and Justice
基金
2017年度教育部人文社会科学规划基金项目“量刑决策中的事实评价与赋值机理——基于量刑情节构成原理及社会度量学理论的反思”(项目编号:l7YJA820001)的阶段性研究成果。
关键词
防卫过当
民刑关系
一元论
二元论
excessive defense
relationship between civil and criminal
monism
dualism
