集體法益還原說的反思與批判

我國晚近刑事立法呈現出擴張化趨勢，刑法的預防機能日益凸顯，法益結構也由重視個人法益轉向維護集體法益。集體法益的抽象化、精神化引發了學界對其立法論機能的質疑，部分學者試圖將其從各個維度還原為個人法益，以維護法益的立法論機能。事實上，還原說的立場不僅無法揭示集體法益的現實意義，也難以闡明法益的立法機能。其中，“分解還原說”錯誤地認為集體法益與個人法益具有同質性，忽視了人與社會、國家間的互動過程。這種立場既不契合刑法預防化發展要求，也有悖我國現實國情。“利益還原說”不僅會導致多元的利益判斷標準無法限制集體法益，還會因利益優劣評價的主觀性難以指導司法實踐。“價值還原說”在價值論維度否認集體法益的獨立性，最終使法益淪為理解犯罪現象的必要非充分條件，且無法詮釋無被害人的犯罪類型。對集體法益的認識有必要從還原說轉向獨立說，並著力從關係論、本體論、功能論、解釋論四個維度展開理論建構。

In recent years, China's criminal legislation has exhibited a trend toward expansion, the preventive function of criminal law has become increasingly prominent, and the structure of legal interests has shifted from an emphasis on the protection of individual legal interests to the safeguarding of collective legal interests. The abstraction and spiritualization of collective legal interests have prompted academic skepticism regarding their legislative function, and some scholars have attempted to reduce them to individual legal interests from various dimensions in order to preserve the legislative function of legal interests. In fact, the reductionist position not only fails to reveal the practical significance of collective legal interests but also struggles to elucidate the legislative function of legal interests. Among these approaches, the“decompositional reductionist view”erroneously assumes a homogeneity between collective and individual legal interests and overlooks the interactive processes between individuals and society and the state; such a stance neither accords with the preventive orientation of contemporary criminal law nor conforms to China's concrete national conditions. The“interest-based reductionist view”not only risks allowing plural and indeterminate standards of interest-balancing to undermine the limiting function of collective legal interests, but also, due to the subjectivity inherent in evaluating the relative importance of interests, proves incapable of providing guidance for judicial practice. The“value-based reductionist view,”by denying the independence of collective legal interests at the level of value theory, ultimately reduces legal interests to a necessary but not sufficient condition for understanding criminal phenomena and fails to account for the category of victimless crimes. Accordingly, the understanding of collective legal interests should move from a reductionist approach to an independence-based approach, with theoretical construction undertaken along four dimensions: relational theory, ontology, functional theory, and interpretive theory.