論故意認定的規範化及其限度

將故意視為一種心理事實的事實性故意概念存在諸多缺陷，應當主張故意認定的規範化。當前學界存在的各種故意規範化理論可歸結為認識因素規範化、意志因素規範化和以負責原則為基礎的故意規範化三種維度。唯有從正面澄清規範故意概念的基本內涵，才能明確故意規範化的限度。立足於故意犯的規範論基礎和處罰根據，故意是指行為人認識到行為具有實現構成要件的風險，且這種風險達到了故意風險的程度，卻仍決意實施行為。減輕證明困難不是故意規範化的正當理由。故意風險的認定是一種規範判斷。意志不是獨立的故意構成要素。故意行為規範的正當化根據與罪刑法定原則劃定了故意規範化的最大邊界。

The factual concept of intent, which views intent as a psychological fact, has numerous flaws, necessitating its normativization. Theories on the normativization of intent in academic literature can be categorized into three dimensions: normativization of cognitive elements, normativization of volitional elements, and normativization based on the principle of responsibility. Clarifying the fundamental connotation of normative intent is essential to defining the limits of intent normativization. Based on the normative foundation of intentional offenses and the rationale for punishment, intent refers to the perpetrator's awareness that their conduct entails a risk of realizing the offense elements, with such risk reaching the threshold of intentional risk, yet they still decide to act. Reducing evidentiary difficulties is not a legitimate justification for intent normativization. The determination of intentional risk is a normative judgment. Volition is not an independent element of intent. The justification for behavioral norms of intentional offenses, along with the principle of legality, establishes the boundaries for intent normativization.