| 摘要: | 期待可能性源於20世紀初，乃係刑法學者反動心理責任論而翻至規範責任論篇章之實質利器，其內涵註定在責任領域內開頭發展，導致體系定位論著亦由此而生。演變至今，雖漸次脫離原生之處，但在學理多方視角之考察下，其於刑事法之地位更顯混沌不明。就刑事法領域中，為防堵執一端而妄下定論之瑕疵，本文求諸於立法權與司法權之交錯，以憲政體制之職能進行思索，推估立法權之犯罪本體樣貌，而非止步於藉司法權採用之犯罪階層論予以推論。換言之，犯罪階層論無非供審查個案果否成立實定法中之犯罪類型，實為一工具爾；然則，犯罪之本體，毋寧需就人民共存社會與立法權權衡評估其運用刑罰權之間，方得獲知解答。準此，本文藉史學之研討，尋現行刑法之脈動，乃以超時代立法之大清新刑律為藍本，並為呼應現今憲政思維，提出以應刑性之社會現象為刑事立法起點，接次按可刑性思維，由立法者審慎評估可否發動刑罰權以保護受侵害之法益，並服膺於犯罪構造訴諸於法明確性之要求，制定犯罪要件，即謂為犯罪本體。續之，對於立法權所設定之犯罪框架，就司法權只能依法審斷之立場，實有無法突破法律之窘境，此際，立法權針對犯罪者之施用刑罰必要性進行預判，並評估國力資源成本，將無意義之情狀囊括設計，以制度或法定要件賦予法律效果，而達制衡司法權之效能，本文謂之需刑性。統合上述，本文先還原期待可能性之本貌，以區辨界限論之立場為基礎，將期待可能性內涵予以析辨，即通案一般人之客觀期待可能性，及個案行為人之主觀期待可能性。承此，分別於犯罪本體及需刑性中進行論辯，探求期待可能性之真正定位。然，犯罪本體中規範制定層次，本就受規範實效性之評估影響，客觀期待可能性無寧係為判斷規範可否期待人民遵守其內容而已，實係探討人民可否遵守規範並受其規制之命題，無庸利用客觀期待可能而生疊床架屋之困擾。另在個案之主觀期待可能性中，其判斷期待與否前，需先還原行為者行為時之反對動機狀態，並以其為待證事實。惟，人類心理狀態難以探測，且其形成動機來源遍布自身過往之經歷，致該待證事實之框定有不斷延伸之跡象，執此，當備受逸脫於犯罪判斷對象範疇界限之批判。況且，在犯罪本體中，乃係立於被害人之立場，形塑以保護法益為目的之刑事犯罪規範，主觀期待可能性則著重於行為者之視角，先天上早已與犯罪呈現扞格之現象，職是，主觀期待可能性並非犯罪成立中不可或缺之要素。再者，個案行為者之反對動機狀態，本文無法否認其將影響法官量刑之心證走向，但其無非乃刑罰目的觀下之操作，並非如同主觀期待可能性以規範之立場而判定可否期待，此兩者不可不辨也。從而，立法者以需刑性利用期待可能性預判司法權個案施用刑罰必要性之一環，亦復如是，皆以刑罰目的觀之立場評價行為者之反對動機狀態。所謂期待可能性之定義，早已被解離而僅有反對動機狀態可用，在語意學之邏輯，實招致於名不符實之境，故而，本文主張應全面揚棄期待可能性之概念。最後，本文就犯罪構造中推估其主觀成分，需含有行為者認識其行為及其行為之社會意義，方為規範規制對象之主觀不法心態。如斯，連同訴諸於期待可能性思想之責任能力及違法性認識規範，本文亦主張應脫離責任領域而重行研討適當定位才是。
The "Zumutbarkeit" from the 20th century, which is key to criminal law researcher overthrowing the theory of psychological responsibility,and dominated by normative Schuldlehre. Because of many investigations caused its positioning confusion. Considering the Originals of Crime of Legislative power with constitutional system rather than Judicial power only. In other words, Dreistufentheorie is just an examinet tool; Originals of Crime is between the social activities of the people and the use of criminal law by the Legislative power. Therefore, based on Great Qing New Criminal Code, Should be A Criminalization is the starting point for creating a criminal law, and then in Necessity of Its Criminalization, After the legislator evaluates the infringement of Legal Interest and abides by Principle Of Legal Certainty, he formulates the Structure of Criminal, which is Originals of Crime. And the legislator must prejudge the necessity of criminal law; and further, giving legal effect to check and balance Judicial power, which is The Balanced Sentencing In Jurisdiction.For restoring the original "Zumutbarkeit",ponder over the junction of Legislative power and Judicial power,which Normal Person "Zumutbarkeit" and Personal "Zumutbarkeit".Legislative power is influenced by Standard effectiveness, Normal Person "Zumutbarkeit" is only used to judge whether people can comply with the norms.In Judicial power Personal "Zumutbarkeit" judgment, first need to restore action person's opposition to motivation. But, human mental state is difficult to judge, Such there are many reasons for motivation that criticized for having too wide a judgment. Criminal norms focus on victims, which is different from Personal "Zumutbarkeit",that why Personal "Zumutbarkeit" isn't an important factor in establishing crime. The actor antimotivation is factors of a judge's decision,but still different from Personal "Zumutbarkeit",one is beneath judgment of purpose of punishment；the other one is beneath norm. So "Zumutbarkeit" is actually only opposition to motivation,it isn’t veritable.In summary, the concept of "Zumutbarkeit" should be abandoned. Finally, the actor knows that the social significance of the behavior is subjective content of "Zumutbarkeit", it’s also a normative subjective mentality, get it from Structure of Criminal. In such a manner, Responsibility and Unrechtsbewusstsein Norm from "Zumutbarkeit" should be separated from the area of liability and repositioned. |
