防衛必要限度：學說之爭與邏輯辨正

部分學者在防衛的必要限度問題上，出現雖在理論上持某種學說立場，但實際個案判斷中卻採用相異學說立場的矛盾現象。“基本相適應說”立場對應著“法益衡量”形式判斷標準，“必需說”立場對應著“必需性”實質判斷標準，“折中說”對應著“法益衡量”與“必需性”的雙重判斷標準。根據數理邏輯的計算結果，在成立防衛過當的比例上，“折中說”的雙重標準最大，“法益衡量”標準比前者略低一點，“必需性”標準則最小。資料關係清晰地表明，“折中說”雙重標準並沒有按照一般預期產生所謂的“折中”效果，而這也是我國刑法學界在三者邏輯關係問題上存在的最大認識誤區。中國學者在邏輯上混淆了“原則與例外說”和“折中說”，從形式邏輯關係來看，“折中說”可歸之為“基本相適應說”立場，“原則與例外說”可歸之為“必需說”立場。四種學說之爭的本質，是“基本相適應說”與“必需說”兩種對立的基本立場之爭。

Some scholars hold certain doctrinal positions in theory, but adopt disparate doctrinal positions in actual case judgment, with regard to the question of the necessary limit of defense. The position of ''basic adaptation theory'' corresponds to the formal judgment standard of ''legal-goods evaluation'' , the position of ''necessity theory'' corresponds to the substantive judgment standard of ''necessity'' , and the ''eclectic theory'' corresponds to the double judgment standard of ''legal-goods evaluation'' and ''necessity'' . According to the calculation results of mathematical logic, the double standard of ''eclectic theory'' is the largest, the standard of ''legal-goods evaluation'' is slightly lower, and the standard of ''necessity'' is the smallest. The relationship of data clearly shows that the double standard of ''eclectic theory'' does not produce the so-called ''eclectic'' effect according as generally expected, which happens to be the biggest misunderstanding in the field of criminal law in China in terms of the logical relationship between the three positions. In addition, Chinese scholars confuse the ''principle and exception theory'' with the ''eclectic theory'' in logic. From the perspective of formal logical relationship, the ''eclecticism'' can be attributed to the ''basic adaptation'' position, while the ''principle and exception'' can be attributed to the ''necessity'' position. The dispute among four kinds of doctrines is essentially the conflict of two kinds of opposing basic positions: the theory of ''basic adaptation'' and that of ''necessity'' .