| 篇名 |
唐律“六殺”的啟示：主觀責任配置的另一種進路 |
| 並列篇名 |
The Enlightenment of Tang's "Six Types of Homicide": Another Way to Allocate the Subjective Responsibility |
| 作者 |
劉藝涵 |
| 中文摘要 |
區分間接故意與有認識的過失對於理論和實踐均有重大意義，但是無論用比對二者差別的方法，還是用爲間接故意劃定範圍的方法都難以做到。究其原因，是因爲“故意—過失”的二元責任論是以概念的思維對主觀責任作出區分，而現實中人們的主觀心態存在著不同類型，難以僅僅用高度抽象的兩個概念進行定義。考察唐律中有關殺人罪的規定會發現，“六殺”的規定即是在主觀責任配置上采用類型化方法的成功司法實踐。有鑒於此，在故意與過失的界限難以劃分的情况下，我們應當考慮建構類型責任補充當前刑法的概念責任。 |
| 英文摘要 |
Distinguishing between indirect intention and cognitive negligence is of great significance to both theory and practice, but it is difficult to do this either by comparing the difference between them directly or by delimiting indirect intention. The reason is that the "Intention—Negligence" dual responsible theory distinguishes subjective responsibility by the thinking model of concept, but in practice, subjective mentality varies from person to person, and it is difficult to define it by using only two abstract concepts.By studying Criminal Laws of Tang Dynasty we can find that "Six Types of Homicide" is a successful judicial practice about the allocation of subjective responsibility by using the typical method. Learning from the ancient Chinese criminal codes, we are supposed to consider the construction of typical responsibility to supple the conceptual responsibility of criminal law when it is difficult to make a distinction between intention and negligence. |
| 起訖頁 |
35-51 |
| 關鍵詞 |
間接故意、有認識的過失、主觀責任、“六殺”、類型與概念、indirect intention、cognitive negligence、subjective responsibility、"Six Types of Homicide"、type and concept |
| 刊名 |
厦门大学法律评论 |
| 出版單位 |
廈門大學法學院
|
| 期數 |
201906 (31期) |
| DOI |
10.3966/615471682019060031003 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
