警察防衛行為性質研究

Research on the Nature of Police's Defense Behavior

對於人民警察是否能夠援引刑法中正當防衛的規定使自身行為合法化，存在著職務行為說、違法區分說、個人行為說與正當防衛說四種主要立場。職務行為說原則上否定對警察行為適用正當防衛的可能性。違法區分說肯定警察行為可以構成正當防衛，但同時認為，正當防衛只能使警察行為在刑法上合法化，不能排除其在行政法上的違法性。個人行為說主張，警察防衛只能被視為人民警察以個人身份實施的防衛行為。正當防衛說則認為，構成正當防衛的警察行為不僅在刑法上合法，在行政法等其他公法中也同樣合法。相對於其他三種學說，正當防衛說是更為有力的見解。其不僅有利於貫徹法秩序統一性原則，在刑事政策上也最為令人滿意。 There are four main positions on whether police can invoke the provision of self-defense in criminal law to legalize their own behavior: duty behave theory, distinction theory, personal behave theory and justified defense theory. The duty behave theory denies in principle the possibility of applying self-defense to police actions; it is affirmed by distinction theory that the action of police can constitute self-defense, however it is believed that self-defense can only legalize police behavior in criminal law yet cannot exclude its illegality in administrative law; it is claimed by personal behave theory that police defense can only be regarded as a defense act carried out by police in their personal capacity; according to the justified defense theory, police acts constituting self-defense are not only legalized in criminal law, but also in administrative law. Compared with the above three other theories, this article explores that the justified defense theory is more convincing.