法益論的侷限與困境：無法發展立法論機能的歷史因素解明

Limitation and Predicament of the Theory of Legal Goods: Understanding the Historical Factors that Inducing Failure of Transformation into the Theory of Legislation

本文是另一主題（如何將比例原則思維架構運用於刑事立法活動）的前導研究，旨在說明法益論為何無法成功轉型為立法論理論，用以支撐放棄既有法益論、另外開闢刑事立法思維架構的必要性。面對法益論的無力性，一般將此歸咎於概念界定方式的缺失，本文則擬指出：法益論的失敗，其實來自於理論發展過程中已被設定了某種固定的思維模式，造成處理能力的侷限，卻在後來被期待發揮超過原本所預設的功能。法益論在魏爾采釐清「法益」與「規範本身」之後，問題意識已轉化為更寬廣的「刑罰保護對象論」，並引發違法性論中行為非價與結果非價的路線之爭。另一方面，「刑事政策的法益概念」成為法益論新流行的研究取向，但是受費爾巴哈影響、以「刑罰手段之射程範圍」（手段本位）方式設問的法益論，已逕將刑罰之使用視為先決，框限了立法者對於問題解決方案的想像，與立法階段以問題解決為導向（目的本位）的思考需求不相符，注定難以成功轉型為立法論理論。姑且不論當初對法益論抱持期待，其實是出於「法益論具自由主義屬性」的誤會，在面對今日「刑罰積極主義」下的新立法趨勢時，法益論在方法上也無從對應，故有必要針對立法階段作通盤思考的需求，另設計更合適的討論架構以資因應。 This article is a preparative study of another topic (how to apply the framework of proportionality thinking to criminal legislation activities) to explain why the theory of legal goods cannot be successfully transformed into a kind of legislative theory to support the necessity of abandoning existing law theory and to open up a new thinking framework aimed at criminal legislation. Faced with the weakness of law theory, it is generally blamed on the lack of concept definition. This article will point out that the failure of law theory actually comes from the fact that it has been fixed in a certain mode of thinking during the course of theoretical development. The limitation of ability was later expected to play more than originally intended. After Welzel’s clarification on the “legal goods” and the “normative itself”, the problem consciousness of the legal goods theory has been transformed into a broader “object of criminal protection”, which has led to a dispute between non-price and non-price in the law of non-price. On the other hand, “the concept of legal interests in criminal policy” has become the new popular research orientation of legal theory. However, the theory of legal interests influenced by Feuerbach and set in the form of “range of penalty measures” (method-based) has been adopted. The use of the information is deemed to be a prerequisite, restricting the legislator's imagination of the solution to the problem, and is inconsistent with the need for thinking in the legislative phase to solve the problem (goal-based). It is doomed to be difficult to successfully transform into a theory of legislation. Regardless of whether or not they initially had expectations of legal theory, they were actually due to the misunderstanding of “theory of liberalization of legal principles.” In the face of the new legislative trend under today’s “penalty tactics”, there is no way to correspond to the method of legal interests. Therefore, it is necessary to address the need for comprehensive thinking at the legislative stage, and to design a more appropriate discussion framework for funding.