刑法體系功能化：立場、限度及展望

我國刑法體系的功能化發展在作出了自主性理論貢獻的同時，也面臨著基本立場不清、正當化界限不明以及刑事責任體系功能化不足等問題。刑法體系功能化應當秉持在尊重存在論、階層論的基礎上進行規範論和目的論思考的基本立場，而不能以需罰性完全取代應罰性判斷，更不能混同不法與責任甚至將二者降格為需罰性的輔助性概念。功能違法論本質上沒有超越功能責任論的價值，反而還存在違法性不當回溯評價、減損刑法規範機能等弊端，因而既無必要也不適當。根據“以應罰性為主、需罰性為輔”的功能主義犯罪論體系，除刑法立法明確規定外，功能責任論的出罪機能在司法上原則上應被限定在基準刑為一年有期徒刑以下刑罰的微罪情形。功能主義刑事責任體系旨在貫通作為犯罪法律後果的民事、行政責任與刑罰處罰之間的關係和作用機理，通過非刑罰措施分擔刑事責任，實現對犯罪的實質制裁與綜合治理。

While the functional development of China’s criminal law system has generated distinctive theoretical contributions, it also faces a number of challenges, including an unclear basic stance, indeterminate boundaries of justification, and an insufficient degree of functionalization within the system of criminal responsibility. The functionalization of the criminal law system should adhere to a fundamental position that conducts normative and teleological reasoning on the basis of respect for ontological and hierarchical theories, rather than allowing considerations of the necessity of punishment to wholly replace judgments concerning the desert of punishment, still less conflating wrongfulness and culpability or reducing both to merely auxiliary concepts serving the necessity of punishment. In essence, the theory of functional wrongfulness does not surpass the value of the theory of functional culpability; instead, it entails such drawbacks as improper retrospective evaluation of illegality and the erosion of the normative function of criminal law, and is therefore neither necessary nor appropriate. Under a functionalist theory of crime structured around the principle of“desert of punishment as primary and necessity of punishment as supplementary,”except where criminal legislation expressly provides otherwise, the exculpatory function of functional culpability should, as a matter of judicial principle, be confined to minor offenses for which the benchmark statutory penalty does not exceed one year of fixed-term imprisonment. A functionalist system of criminal responsibility aims to integrate the relationships and mechanisms among civil liability, administrative liability, and criminal punishment as legal consequences of crime, and to achieve substantive sanctioning and comprehensive governance of crime through the allocation of criminal responsibility partly to non-penal measures.