外国刑法纲要
外国刑法纲要

外国刑法纲要刑法作为维护社会秩序和保障公民权利的重要法律规范,在不同国家有着各自独特的特点和发展历程。
外国刑法的研究对于我们拓宽法律视野、借鉴有益经验以及促进国际法律交流具有重要意义。
在众多的外国刑法体系中,大陆法系和英美法系是最为典型的两大分支。
大陆法系的刑法以法典化、逻辑严密和体系完整为显著特点。
例如,德国刑法典具有高度的概括性和系统性,对犯罪的构成要件、刑罚的种类和适用等方面都做了详尽的规定。
法国刑法典则在历史上有着深远的影响,其不断的修订和完善反映了社会的变迁和法治理念的进步。
英美法系的刑法则更多地依赖于判例法。
英国的刑法通过长期以来的司法判例逐渐形成和发展,具有很强的灵活性和适应性。
美国刑法在继承英国传统的基础上,因各州拥有一定的立法权而呈现出多样化的特点。
从犯罪的分类来看,外国刑法中的犯罪类型丰富多样。
在一些国家,如日本,将犯罪分为重罪、轻罪和违警罪。
重罪通常指那些性质严重、刑罚较重的犯罪,如杀人、抢劫等;轻罪相对较轻,刑罚也较为温和;违警罪则一般是轻微的违法行为。
而在刑罚的设置上,各国也存在差异。
有的国家采用单一的刑罚体系,如只规定监禁刑;有的则是多种刑罚并用,包括监禁、罚金、社区服务、缓刑等。
例如,瑞典注重非监禁刑的适用,通过社会矫正和教育措施来帮助罪犯重新回归社会。
外国刑法在犯罪构成要件方面也各有特点。
有些国家强调犯罪的主观方面,即犯罪人的故意或过失心态;有些则更注重犯罪的客观行为和结果。
同时,对于犯罪的既遂与未遂、共同犯罪等问题,不同国家的刑法规定也不尽相同。
在刑事诉讼程序方面,外国刑法也展现出丰富的多样性。
一些国家实行职权主义诉讼模式,强调法官在诉讼中的主导作用;而另一些则采用当事人主义诉讼模式,赋予当事人更大的诉讼权利。
此外,外国刑法还关注一些特殊的领域和问题。
例如,网络犯罪随着信息技术的发展日益猖獗,许多国家纷纷修订刑法以应对这一挑战。
恐怖主义犯罪也成为国际社会关注的焦点,各国通过加强刑法打击力度来维护国家安全和社会稳定。
张明楷外国刑法纲要读书笔记

张明楷外国刑法纲要读书笔记张明楷教授的《外国刑法纲要》是一本非常重要的刑法著作,涵盖了外国刑法学的基础知识和最新发展。
在这本书中,张明楷教授强调了刑法的正义性和公平性,并提出了刑法应服务于社会正义的观点。
本文将结合书本内容,对张明楷外国刑法纲要读书笔记进行探讨。
张明楷外国刑法纲要读书笔记张明楷教授的《外国刑法纲要》是一本非常重要的刑法著作,涵盖了外国刑法学的基础知识和最新发展。
在这本书中,张明楷教授强调了刑法的正义性和公平性,并提出了刑法应服务于社会正义的观点。
本文将结合书本内容,对张明楷外国刑法纲要读书笔记进行探讨。
一、刑法的正义性张明楷教授在本书中指出,刑法的正义性是刑法存在的基础。
刑法的正义性体现在两个方面:首先,刑法应该对犯罪行为进行惩罚,以维护社会的安全和秩序;其次,刑法应该保证惩罚的公正性,以避免不公和偏见的出现。
对于刑法的正义性,张明楷教授提出了“机能法治主义”的观点。
机能法治主义认为,刑法的作用不仅仅是惩罚犯罪,还应该考虑到社会的需要和人权的保护。
刑法应该以实现社会正义为目标,并根据社会需要进行调整。
二、刑法的公平性刑法的公平性是刑法的重要特点之一。
张明楷教授指出,刑法的公平性指的是刑法对于所有犯罪行为都给予同样的惩罚,不论犯罪者的身份、地位、财富等因素。
刑法的公平性可以避免社会不公和偏见的出现,保障社会的和谐和稳定。
三、刑法的发展趋势张明楷教授在本书中提到,刑法的发展趋势主要包括以下几个方面:1.刑法的适用范围不断扩大。
随着全球化的发展,刑法的适用范围也在不断扩展,刑法已经广泛应用于国际事务、国际合作等领域。
2.刑法的机能不断调整。
随着社会的发展,刑法的机能也在不断调整,从单纯的惩罚犯罪向保护社会、保障人权等方面扩展。
3.刑法的立法模式不断革新。
近年来,许多国家的刑法立法模式发生了改变,开始采用国际刑法、普遍刑法等立法模式。
四、结论综上所述,张明楷外国刑法纲要读书笔记为我们提供了非常重要的刑法理论知识和最新发展。
刑法大纲 - 美国法学院

Emanuel Law OutlinesCriminal LawChapter 1ACTUS REUS AND MENS REAI. GENERALA. Four elements: All crimes have several basic common elements: (1) a voluntary act(―actusreus‖); (2) a culpable intent(―mens rea‖); (3) “concurrence” between the mens rea and the actus reus; and (4) causation of harm. [1]II. ACTUS REUSA. Significance of concept: The defendant must have committed a voluntary act, or “actus reus.”Look for an actus reus problem anytime you have one of the following situations: (1) D has not committed physical acts, but has ―guilty‖ thoughts, words, states of possession or status; (2) D does an involuntary act; and (3) D has an omission, or failure to act. [1]B. Thoughts, words, possession and status: Mere thoughts are never punishable as crimes.(Example:D writes in his diary, ―I intend to kill V.‖ This statement alone is not enough to constitute any crime, even attempted murder.) [1]1. Possession as criminal act: However, mere possession of an object may sometimesconstitute the necessary criminal act. (Example:Possession of narcotics frequentlyconstitutes a crime in itself.) [1 - 2]a. Knowledge: When mere possession is made a crime, the act of ―possession‖is almost always construed so as to include only conscious possession. (Example:If the prosecution fails to prove that D knew he had narcotics on his person,there can be no conviction.) [1]C. Act must be voluntary: An act cannot satisfy the actus reus requirement unless it is voluntary.[3 - 5]1. Reflex or convulsion: An act consisting of a reflex or convulsion does not give rise tocriminal liability. [3]Example: D, while walking down the street, is stricken by epileptic convulsions. His armjerks back, and he strikes X in the face. The striking of X is not a voluntary act, so Dcannot be held criminally liable. But if D had known beforehand that he was subject tosuch seizures, and unreasonably put himself in a position where he was likely to harmothers — for instance, by driving a car — this initial act might subject him to criminalliability.2. Unconsciousness: An act performed during a state of “unconsciousness”does notmeet the actus reus requirement. But D will be found to have acted ―unconsciously‖ onlyin rare situations. [3 - 4]Example: If D can show that at the time of the crime he was on ―automatic pilot,‖ andwas completely unconscious of what he was doing, his act will be involuntary. (But themere fact that D has amnesia concerning the period of the crime will not be a defense.)3. Hypnosis: Courts are split about whether acts performed under hypnosis aresufficiently ―involuntary‖ that they do not give rise to liability. The Model Penal Code(MPC) treats conduct under hypnosis as being involuntary. [4]4. Self-induced state: In all cases involving allegedly involunt ary acts, D’s earliervoluntary act may deprive D of the ―involuntary‖ defense. [4]Example: D, a member of a cult run by Leader, lets himself be hypnotized. Beforeundergoing hypnosis, D knows that Leader often gives his members orders underhypnosis to commit crimes. D can probably be held criminally liable for any crimescommitted while under hypnosis, because he knowingly put himself in a position wherethis might result.D. Omissions: The actus reus requirement means that in most situations, there is no criminalliability for an omission to act (as distinguished from an affirmative act). [5 - 9]Example:D sees V, a stranger, drowning in front of him. D could easily rescue V. D will normally not be criminally liable for failing to attempt to rescue V, because there is no general liability for omissions as distinguished from affirmative acts.1. Existence of legal duty: But there are some ―special situations‖ where courts deem Dto have a special legal duty to act. Where this occurs, D’s omission may be p unishedunder a statute that speaks in terms of positive acts. [6 - 8]a. Special relationship: Where D and V have a special relationship—mostnotably a close blood relationship— D will be criminally liable for a failure toact. (Example: Parent fails to give food or water to Child, and Child dies. Evenif there is no general statute dealing with child abuse, Parent can be held liablefor murder or manslaughter, because the close relationship is construed toimpose on Parent an affirmative duty to furnish necessities and thereby preventdeath.) [6]i. Permitting child abuse: Some courts have applied this theory tohold one parent liable for child abuse for failing to intervene to stopaffirmative abuse by the other parent.b. Contract: Similarly, a legal duty may arise out of a contract. (Example:Lifeguard is hired by City to guard a beach. Lifeguard intentionally fails to saveVictim from drowning, even though he could easily do so. Lifeguard willprobably be criminally liable despite the fact that his conduct was an omissionrather than an act; his contract with City imposed a duty to take affirmativeaction.) [7]c. D caused danger: If the danger was caused (even innocently) by D himself,D generally has an affirmative duty to then save V. [7]Example: D digs a hole in the sidewalk in front of his house, acting legallyunder a building permit. D sees V about to step into the hole, but says nothing.V falls in and dies. D can be held criminally liable for manslaughter, because hecreated the condition — even though he did so innocently — and thus had anaffirmative duty to protect those he knew to be in danger.d. Undertaking: Finally, D may come under a duty to render assistance if heundertakes to give assistance. This is especially true where D leaves V worseoff than he was before, or effectively dissuades other rescuers who believe thatD is taking care of the problem. [8]Example: V is drowning, while D and three others are on shore. D says, ―I’llswim out to save V.‖ The others agree, and leave, thin king that D is taking careof the situation. Now, D will be criminally liable if he does not make reasonableefforts to save V.III. MENS REAA. Meaning: The term “mens rea” symbolizes the requirement that there be a “culpable state ofmind.” [11]1. Not necessarily state of mind: Most crimes require a true ―mens rea,‖ that is, a stateof mind that is truly guilty. But other crimes are defined to require merely ―negligence‖or ―recklessness,‖ which is not really a state of mind at all. Nonetheless, the term―mensrea‖ is sometimes used for these crimes as well: thus one can say that ―for manslaughter,the mens rea is recklessness.‖ There are also a few crimes defined so as to require nomens rea at all, the so called ―strict liability‖ crimes. [11]B. General vs. specific intent: Court traditionally classify the mens rea requirements of various crimes into three groups: (1) crimes requiring merely “general intent”; (2) crimes requiring “specific intent”; and (3) crimes requiring merely recklessness or negligence. (Strict liability crimes form a fourth category, as to which there is no culpable mental state required at all.) [12 - 13]1. “General intent”: A crime requiring merely “general intent” is a crime for which itmust merely be shown that D desired to commit the act which served as the actus reus.[12]2. “Specific intent”: Where a crime requires “specific intent”or ―special intent,‖ thismeans that D, in addition to desiring to bring about the actus reus, must have desired to do something further. [13 - 13]Example of general intent crime:Battery is usually a ―general intent‖ crime. The actus reus is a physical injury to or offensive touching of another. So long as D intends to touch another in an offensive way, he has the ―general intent‖ that is all t hat is needed for battery. (Thus if D touches V with a knife, intending merely to graze his skin and frighten him, this will be all the (general) intent needed for battery, since D intended the touching, and no other intent (such as the intent to cause injury) is required.Example of specific intent crime: For common-law burglary, on the other hand, it must be shown that D not only intended to break and enter the dwelling of another, but that he also intended to commit a felony once inside the dwelling. Thi s latter intent is a ―specific intent‖ — it is an intent other than the one associated with the actus reus (the breaking and entering).3. Significance: The general/specific intent distinction usually matters in two situations:(1) where D is intoxicated; and (2) where D makes a mistake of law or fact. [13]a. Intoxication: Intoxication rarely negates a crime of general intent, but maysometimes negate the specific intent for a particular crime. (Example: D breaksand enters, but is too drunk to have any intent to commit larceny or any otherfelony inside; D probably is not guilty of burglary.) [13]b. Mistake: Similarly, a mistake of fact is more likely to be enough to negatethe required specific intent. [13]Example: D breaks and enters, in an attempt to carry away something which hemistakenly thinks belongs to him; D will probably be acquitted of burglary,where mistake will generally not negate a general intent (e.g., the intent tocommit the breaking and entering by itself).4. Abandonment of distinction: However, many modern codes, and the Model PenalCode, have abandoned the general/specific distinction, and instead set forth the precise mental state required for each element of each crime. [13]C. “Purposely” as mental state: Many crimes are defined to be committed only where a person acts “purposely”with respect to a particular element of a crime. Other crimes are defined to require the similar, but not identical, mental state of “intentionally.” [14 - 16]1. Definition of “purposely”: A person act s ―purposely‖ with respect to a particularelement if it his “conscious object” to engage in the particular conduct in question, or to cause the particular result in question. [14 - 15]2. Not the same as “knowingly”: In modern statutes, ―purposely‖ is not the same as―knowingly.‖ If D does not desire a particular result, but is aware that the conduct or result is certain to follow, this is not―purposely.‖ [16]Example: D consciously desires to kill A, and does so by putting a bomb on board a plane that co ntains both A and B. Although D knew B’s death was certain, a modern court would probably not hold that D ―purposely‖ killed B, (although D might nonetheless be guilty of murder on the grounds that he acted with a ―depraved heart‖).3. Motive: D’s motive will usually be irrelevant in determining whether he acted―purposely‖ or ―intentionally.‖ [16 - 16]Example: D, in an act of euthanasia, kills V, his wife, who has terminal cancer. D will be held to have ―purposely‖ or ―intentionally‖ killed V, even though he did it for ostensibly ―good‖ motives.a. Relevant to defenses: Special motives may, however, be relevant to theexistence of a defense (e.g., the defense of self-defense or necessity).D. “Knowingly”: Modern statutes, and the Model Penal Code, define some crimes to require that D “knowingly”take an act or produce a result. The biggest distinction between ―purposely‖ and ―knowingly‖ relates to D’s awareness of the consequences of his act: if the crime is defined with respect to a certain result of D’s conduct, D has acted knowingly (but not ―purposely‖) if he was ―aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause that result.‖ [16 - 19]Example: On the facts of our earlier ―bomb on the airplane‖ example, D will have ―knowingly‖ killed B, but not ―purposely‖ killed B, because he was aware that it was practically certain that his conduct would cause B’s death.1. Presumption of knowledge: A statutory or judge-made presumption may be used tohelp prove that D acted ―knowingly.‖ (Example:In many statutes governing receipt of stolen property, D’s unexplained possession of property which is in fact stolen gives rise to a presumption that D knew the property was stolen.) [18]2. Knowledge of attendant circumstances: Where a statute specifies that D must act―knowingly,‖ and the statute then specifies various attendant circumstances which the definition of the crime makes important, usually the requirement of knowledge is held applicable to all these attendant circumstances. [18]Example: A statute provides that any dealer in used merchandise must file a report with the police if the dealer ―knowingly purchases a used item from one who is not in the business of selling such items, at a price less than half of the fair market value of the item.‖ The statute’s purpose is to cut down on the ―fencing‖ of stolen goods. D, a used merchandise dealer, buys a vase for $500 that is really worth $2,000. Most courts would require the prosecution to show that D knew not only that he was purchasing the vase, but t hat he knew he was paying less than half of the vase’s fair market value. In other words,D must be shown to have acted knowingly with respect to all of the attendantcircumstances, including the circumstance that the purchase price was much less than the value.E. “Recklessly”: A person acts “recklessly”if he “consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk....”MPC §2.02(2). The idea is that D has behaved in a way that represents a gross deviation from the conduct of a law-abiding person. [19 - 20]1. Must be aware of risk: Most courts, and the Model Penal Code, hold that D isreckless only if he was aware of the high risk of harm stemming from his conduct. This isa ―subjective‖ standard for recklessness. But a substantial minority of courts and statuteshold that D can be reckless if he behaves extremely unreasonably even though he was unaware of the risk. [19]Example:D runs a nightclub with inadequate fire exits. A fire breaks out, killing hundreds. Under the majority ―subjective‖ standard for recklessness, D was reckless only if he actually knew of the high risk of harm posed by inadequate fire exits. Under the minority ―objective‖ standard, it would be enough that D was extremely careless and thata reasonable person would have known of the great danger, even though D did not.F. “Negligently”: Some statutes make it a crime to behave “negligently” if certain results follow. For instance, the crime of ―vehicular homicide‖ is sometimes defined to require a mens rea of ―criminal negligence.‖ [20 - 21]1. Awareness not required: Most modern statutes, and the Model Penal Code, allow afinding of criminal negligence even if D was not aware of the risk imposed by his conduct (as in the above night-club fire example). [20]2. “Gross” negligence req uired: Usually, criminal negligence is “gross”negligence.That is, the deviation from ordinary care must be greater than that which would be required for civil negligence. [21]G. Strict liability: Some offenses are “strict liability.”That is, no culpable mental state at all must be shown — it is enough that D performed the act in question, regardless of his mental state.[21 - 24]Examples of strict liability crimes: The following are often defined as strict liability offenses: Statutory rape (D is generally guilty if he has intercourse with a girl below the prescribed age, regardless of whether he knew or should have known her true age); mislabeling of drugs; polluting of water or air; concealment of a dangerous weapon while boarding an aircraft.1. Constitutionality: Generally there is no constitutional problem with punishing adefendant without regard to his mental state. [21]2. Interpretation: The mere fact that the statute does not specify a mental state does notmean that the crime is a strict liability one — judges must determine whether a particular mental state was intended by the legislature. In general, the older the statute (especially if it is a codification of a common-law crime), the less likely it is to be a strict-liability offense. Most strict liability offenses are modern, and are of relatively low heinousness.[22 - 23]a. Complex statute that is easy to violate innocently: If the statute is complex,or easy to violate innocently, or imposes serious penalties, the court is likely toread in a mens rea requirement, and thus to refuse to treat the statute asimposing strict liability. [Staples v. U.S.] [22]b. MPC: Under the MPC, the only offenses that are strict liability are onescalled “violations.”These are minor offenses that do not constitute a ―crime‖and that may be punished only by fine or forfeiture. [23]H. Vicarious liability: Statutes sometimes impose upon one person liability for the act of another; this is commonly called “vicarious liability.” In essence, the requirement of an act (actus reus) has been dispensed with, not the requirement of the wrongful intent. [24 - 26]Example:Statutes frequently make an automobile owner liable for certain acts committed by those to whom he lends his car, even without a showing of culpable mental state on the part of the owner.1. Constitutionality: Generally, the imposition of vicarious liability does not violate D’sdue process rights. However, there are exceptions: [24 - 25]a. D has no control over offender: If D did not have any ability to control theperson who performed the actual actus reus, his conviction is probablyunconstitutional. [24]Example: X steals D’s car, and exceeds the speed limit. It is probablyunconstitutional for the state to impose criminal sanctions upon D, since he hadno ability to control X’s conduct.b. Imprisonment: If D has been sentenced to imprisonment(or even if he isconvicted of a crime for which imprisonment is authorized), some courts holdthat his due process rights are violated unless he is shown to have at least knownof the violation. [25]Example: D is a tavern owner whose employee served a minor. If D did notknow of this act, or in any way acquiesce in its commission, some courts wouldhold that D may not constitutionally be imprisoned for it.I. Mistake: Defendants raise the defense of mistake when they have been mistaken either about the facts or the law. Do not think of ―mistake‖ as being a separate ―doctrine.‖ Instead, look at the effect of the particular mistake on D’s mental state, and examine whether he was thereby prevented from having the mental state required for the crime. [26 - 32]Example: Assume that the requisite mental intent for larceny is the intent to take property which one knows or believes to belong to another. D takes V’s umbrella from a restaurant, thinking that it is his own. D’s factual mistake — his belief about who owns the umbrella — is a defense to the theft charge, because it negates the requisite mental state (intent to take the property which one knows or believes belongs to another).1. Crimes of “general intent”: D’s mistake is least likely to assist him where the crimeis a “general intent” crime (i.e., one for which the most general kind of culpable intent will suffice). [26]Example: Murder is often thought of as a ―general intent‖ crime in the sense that it will be enough that D either intends to kill, intends to commit grievous bodily injury, is recklessly indifferent to the value of human life or intends to commit any of certain non-homicide felonies. Suppose D shoots a gun at V, intending to hit V in the arm and thus create a painful but not serious flesh wound. D mistakenly believes that V is in ordinary health, when in fact he is a hemophiliac. D’s mistake will not help him, because even had the facts been as D supposed them to be, D would have had a requisite mental state, the intent to commit grievous bodily injury.2. “Lesser crime” theory: D’s mistake will almost never help him if, had the facts beenas D mistakenly supposed them to be, his acts would still have been a crime, though a lesser one. This is the “lesser crime” theory. [29]Example:D steals a necklace from a costume jewelry store. The necklace is made of diamonds, and is worth $10,000, but D mistakenly believes it to be costume jewelry worth less than $500. In the jurisdiction, theft of something worth less than $500 is a misdemeanor, and theft of something worth more than that is a felony. D is guilty of a crime — a felony in most states — because even had the facts been as he supposed them to be, he still would have been guilty of some crime. (But some states, and the Model Penal Code, would scale his crime back to the crime that he would have committed had the facts been as he supposed, in this case, a misdemeanor.)a. Moral wrong: Older decisions extend this principle to deny D of the defenseof mistake if, under the facts as D believed them to be, his conduct and intentwould have been “immoral.” But modern statutes reject this view. [26]3. Mistake must be “reasonable”: Older cases often impose the rule that a mistakecannot be a defense unless it was “reasonable.” But the modern view, and the view of the MPC, is that even an unreasonable mistake will block conviction if the mistake prevented D from having the requisite intent or knowledge. [27]Example: D attempts (unsuccessfully) to have sex with a girl he meets on the street. He is charged with assault with intent to rape. D shows that he actually, but unreasonably, believed that V was a prostitute, because prostitutes frequented that area. A traditional court would probably hold that the mistake was no defense, since D’s mistake was ―unreasonable.‖ But a modern court might allow the defense, since had the fa cts been asD supposed them to be, he would not have intended to commit a crime (unconsented-tosex).a. Rejection by finder of fact: Remember that even in a ―modern‖ jurisdiction,the finder of fact is always free to disbelieve that the mistake really occurred.Thus on the facts of the above example, the more ―unreasonable‖ D’s story thathe thought V was a prostitute, the quicker the jury (or the judge in a bench trial)can be to conclude simply that D was not in fact mistaken. [27]4. Mistake of law: It is especially hard for D to prevail with a defense based on “mistakeof law.” [27]a. Generally no defense: As a general rule, “mistake of law is no defense.”More precisely, this means that the fact that D mistakenly believes that nostatute makes his conduct a crime does not furnish a defense. [27]Example: D, who is retarded, does not realize that unconsented-to intercourse isa crime. D has unconsented-to intercourse with V. D’s ignorance thatunconsented-to intercourse is a crime will not be a defense; so long as Dintended the act of intercourse while knowing that V did not consent, he is guilty.i. Reasonable mistake: In this core ―D mistakenly believes that nostatute makes his conduct a crime‖ situation, even a reasonablemistake about the meaning of the statute will usually not protect D. Inother words, so long as the crime is not itself defined in a way thatmakes D’s guilty knowledge a prerequisite, there is usually no―reasonable mistake‖ exception to the core ―mistake of law is nodefense‖ rule.b. Mistake of law as to collateral fact: It is important to remember that the oft-stated ―rule,‖ ―ignorance of the law is no excuse,‖ really only means “ignorancethat a statute makes one’s conduct a crime is no excuse.” A mistake of law asto some collateral fact may negative the required mental state, just as a mistakeof fact may do so. [29]Example 1:D’s car has been repossessed by Finance Co. D finds the car, breaksin, and takes it back. D’s belief that the car is still legally his will absolve him,because it prevents him from having the requisite mental state for theft (intent totake property which one knows or believes to belong to another). (But if D hadtaken his neighbor’s car, his ignorance that there is a statute making it a crime totake o ne’s neighbor’s property would not be a defense.)Example 2: D reasonably believes that he has been divorced from W, his firstwife, but in fact the ―divorce‖ is an invalid foreign decree, which is notrecognized under local law. D then marries V. D’s ―mistake of law‖ about theenforceability of the prior divorce will negative the intent needed for bigamy(intent to have two spouses at once).c. Mistake of law defense built in: Of course, it’s always possible for thelegislature to write a statute in such a way that a mistake of law will constitute adefense (or so that awareness of the criminality of the conduct is an element ofthe offense). For instance, the legislature might do this by defining the crime toconsist of a “willful violation‖ — the use of t he word ―willful‖ would probablybe interpreted to require knowledge by the defendant that his act was prohibitedby law. [32 - 33]Example: A federal statute prohibits ―structuring‖ bank transactions to evadethe requirement that all transactions over $10,000 be reported to the government.Another statute makes it a crime to ―willfully‖ violate the first statute. Held, Dcannot be convicted of a willful violation of the statute unless the prosecutionshows that he was aware of the ban on structuring. [Ratzlaf v. U.S.]IV. CONCURRENCEA. Two types of concurrence required: There are two ways in which there must be“concurrence” involving the mens rea: (1) there must be concurre nce between D’s mental state and the act; and (2) there must be concurrence between D’s mental state and the harmful result, if the crime is one defined in terms of bad results. [35]B. Concurrence between mind and act: There must be concurrence between the mental stateand the act. [35 - 37]1. Same time: This requirement is not met if, at the time of the act, the required mentalstate does not exist. [35 - 37]Example: Common-law larceny is defined as the taking of another’s property with intent to depriv e him of it. D takes V’s umbrella from a restaurant, thinking that it is his own.Five minutes later, he realizes that it belongs to V, and decides to keep it. D has not committed larceny, because at the time he committed the act (the taking), he did not have the requisite mental intent (the intent to deprive another of his property). The fact that D later acquired the requisite intent is irrelevant.2. Mental state must cause act: In fact, the mental state must cause the act. [36]Example: D intends to kill V. While driving to the store to buy a gun to carry out his intent, D accidentally runs over V and kills him. D is not guilty of murder, even though the intent to kill V existed at the time the act (driving the car over V) took place. This is because D’s intent to kill did not ―cause‖ the act (driving the car over V).a. Any action that is legal cause of harm: Most crimes are defined in terms ofharmful results (e.g., homicide is the wrongful taking of a life). Where D takesseveral acts which together lead to the harmful result, the concurrencerequirement is met if the mental state concurs with any act that suffices as alegal cause of the harm. [36 - 37]i. Destruction or concealment of a “body”: Because of this rule, D will beguilty if he attempts to kill his victim, believes the victim to be dead, and thendestroys or conceals the ―body,‖ killing the victim for real. (Example: D strikesV over the head, and thinking V is dead, pushes him over a cliff to destroy thebody. The autopsy shows that the blows did not kill V and probably would nothave killed him. V really died from the fall off the cliff. Most courts would findD guilty, probably on the theory that the blows to the head were a cause of harm,and the guilty intent (to kill V) caused the blows. [Thabo Meli v. Regina, 1 AllE.R. 373 (Eng. 1954)])C. Concurrence between mind and result: There must also be concurrence between the mental state and the harmful result, if the crime is one defined in terms of bad results (such as homicide, rape, larceny, etc.) Basically this aspect of concurrence means that if what actually occurred is too far removed from what was intended, there will be no concurrence and thus no liability. [37 - 40]1. Different crime: Thus if the harm which actually occurs is of a completely differenttype from what D intended, D will generally not be guilty of the other crime. In other words, the intent for one crime may not usually be linked with a result associated with a different crime. [37]Example: D attempts to shoot V to death while V is leaving his house. The shot misses and ruptures V’s stove, causing V’s house to burn down. Assuming that arson is defined so as to require an intent to burn, D will not be guilty of arson, because the intent for one crime (murder) cannot be matched with the result for another crime (burning) to produce guilt for the latter crime.2. Recklessly- or negligently-caused result: The same rule applies where D hasnegligently or recklessly acted with respect to the risk of a particular result, and a very different result occurs. [38]Example: D recklessly takes target practice with his rifle in a crowded area; what makes his conduct reckless is the high risk that D will injure or kill a person. One of D’s shots hits a gas tank, and causes a large fire. Assuming that the danger of causing a fire was not large, D will not be convicted of arson (even if arson is defined to include reckless burning), since his conduct was reckless only with respect to the risk of bodily harm, not the risk of burning.3. Felony-murder and misdemeanor-manslaughter rules: But this general principlethat there is no liability for a resulting harm which is substantially different from that intended or risked by D is subject to two very important exceptions, both relating to homicide: [38]。
《外国刑法纲要》学习笔记[终稿]
![《外国刑法纲要》学习笔记[终稿]](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/732174d9a0c7aa00b52acfc789eb172ded639925.png)
总论第一编刑法第一章刑法与刑法理论第一节刑法的概念与机能一、刑法的概念一般来说,刑法是关于犯罪与刑罚的法律。
从广义上说,凡是规定犯罪的要件以及犯罪的法律效果的法律规范,都是刑法(实质意义的刑法);从狭义上言,刑法是指系统地规定犯罪与刑罚的法典,即刑法典。
通常将刑法典称为普通刑法或一般刑法,刑法典以外的刑罚法规称为特别刑法。
现在,由于作为刑罚补充的保安处分制度迅速发展,而其许多国家将保安处分规定在刑法典中,所以,关于保安处分的法律也属于刑法。
在外国,既有使用“刑法”概念的,也有使用“犯罪法”概念的。
英美使用“犯罪法”概念,德国、日本使用“刑法”概念,法国二者均使用。
可见,二者的使用,主要是一种习惯,难以认为二者之间有实质区别。
还有“刑事法”一词,包括刑法、刑事诉讼法与行刑法。
一般认为,刑法属于公法(法国属于私法),司法法(指导原理是法的安定性),实体法。
二、刑法的概念刑法的机能,也可以说是刑法的作用,有很多不同的提法,总的说来,刑法的法益保护机能与自由保障机能,是一般学者都承认的,至于社会伦理机能、行为规制机能,则主要是规范违法说、行为无价值论的主张者所承认的。
主要介绍刑法三个机能。
(一)自由保障机能自由保障机能(也称为人权保障机能),由来于罪刑法定主义原则,是指刑法具有通过制约国家刑罚权的行使,保障行为人不受国籍滥用权力的侵害,进而保障国民的个人自由及其他利益的机能。
(二)法益保护机能法益保护机能,由来于刑法的法益保护目的(或原则)。
法益是指法律所保护的利益,刑法具有保护法益不受犯罪侵害的机能。
处罚伤害者的刑法规范,就是保护他人的身体健康不受伤害行为的侵害。
所有的刑法规范都是为了保护某种法益而制定的,故刑法具有法益保护机能。
法益保护机能具体表现为:①通过对抽象地侵害一定法益的行为设定刑罚,防止一般国民侵害法益(一般预防);②通过对现实已经发生的犯罪科处刑罚,防止犯罪人重新侵害法益(特殊预防)。
但是,刑法以外的其他法律也在以某种形式保护法益,刑法是以刑罚作为手段保护法益的,只有当其他法律不能充分保护法益时,才能由刑法进行保护。
外国刑法纲要

外国刑法纲要一、引言外国刑法指的是各个国家或地区所制定并实施的刑法体系。
由于不同国家和地区具有不同的历史、文化、经济和社会背景,因此外国刑法在内容和实施方式上存在较大差异。
本文将对外国刑法的一般纲要进行介绍,以便读者对外国刑法体系有一个较为全面的了解。
二、组成要素外国刑法一般由以下几个组成要素构成:1.刑法基本原则:各国刑法体系都建立在一定的基本原则之上,如法律面前人人平等、罪刑法定原则、最低限度保护原则等。
这些原则对于确保刑法的公正和合理性起着重要的作用。
2.刑法分类:不同国家和地区根据其刑法的目的和内容,将犯罪行为划分为不同的分类。
常见的刑法分类包括财产犯罪、人身犯罪、社会危害犯罪等。
3.犯罪类型和刑罚:各国根据其法律体系所要达到的目标确定了不同的犯罪类型和相应的刑罚。
犯罪类型包括盗窃、抢劫、谋杀等,刑罚则包括罚金、剥夺自由、死刑等。
4.犯罪证据和证明:外国刑法对犯罪的证据收集和证明程序也有不同的规定。
包括搜查和扣押、证人证言、鉴定和鉴定意见等。
5.刑事程序:外国刑法对刑事程序、审判和判决等方面也有详细规定。
包括逮捕、起诉、审判程序、上诉程序等。
三、典型国家刑法体系1.美国刑法:美国的刑法是以联邦和州两级刑法体系相结合的方式进行管理。
联邦刑法主要涉及涉及跨州犯罪和特定联邦领域的犯罪,而州刑法则管理州内的犯罪。
美国刑法注重个人权利和民主原则,强调犯罪行为的社会危害性和个人过错的程度。
2.英国刑法:英国刑法源于普通法,其特点是由司法判例和法律规则相结合。
英国刑法体系注重实施公平和公正的刑事司法,具有灵活性和适应性强的特点。
3.德国刑法:德国刑法是以德国刑法典为基础的刑法体系。
德国刑法注重对犯罪行为的预防和保护社会秩序的原则,采用了罪行和刑罚相互平衡的原则,强调对具体个案的深入调查和证据的充分审查。
四、刑法的国际化趋势随着全球化的发展,不同国家和地区之间的交流与合作日益频繁,刑法的国际化也成为趋势。
《外国刑法》教学大纲

《外国刑法》课程简介课程代码:050302002总学时: 32(理论学时32学时 实验学时0学时)学分: 2课程性质:法学专业限选课先修课程:法学导论、宪法学、刑法学等授课对象:法学专业本科学生内容提要:外国刑法是对外国的刑法、刑法理论、刑事立法和司法实践进行系统研究的法律学科,在法学诸学科中占有显著的、独特的地位。
外国刑法学主要有刑法基础论、犯罪论、刑罚论三个部分。
刑法基础论部分包括:刑法与刑法理论、刑法的基本原则、刑法的适用范围。
犯罪论部分包括:犯罪与犯罪论、构成要件符合性、违法性、责任、未遂犯、共犯、罪数论;刑罚论部分包括:刑罚概述、刑罚的种类、刑罚的适用、刑罚的执行、保安处分。
《外国刑法》教学大纲一、课程性质与教学目的课程性质:法学专业限选课。
教学目的:通过外国刑法的学习,可以使学生掌握外国刑法学的基本知识、原理、原则、学派,从而扩大刑法学研究的领域,进一步激发学习刑法学的兴趣。
二、基本要求学生应达到如下要求:较为系统地掌握外国刑法学的基本内容,特别是难度较大的犯罪论部分的一些基本概念和基本理论,为进一步深造奠定良好的基础。
三、教学内容第一章 刑法与刑法理论(2学时)第一节 刑法的概念与机能一、刑法的概念二、刑法规范三、刑法的机能四、刑法谦抑主义第二节 刑法理论一、刑法学二、学派之争第二章 刑法的基本原则(2学时)第一节 刑法的基本原则概述第二节 罪刑法定原则一、罪刑法定原则的法律渊源与思想渊源二、罪刑法定原则的思想基础三、罪刑法定主义的基本内容第三节 法益保护原则第四节 责任主义原则第三章 刑法的适用范围(2学时)第一节 刑法的适用范围概述第二节 时间上的适用范围一、时际刑法的基本原则二、限时法理论三、确定犯罪时的理论第三节 空间上的适用范围一、概说二、国内犯三、国外犯第四章 犯罪与犯罪论(2学时)第一节 犯罪的定义、实质与种类一、犯罪的定义二、犯罪的本质三、犯罪的分类第二节 行为理论一、行为概念的机能二、关于行为的学说三、行为人第三节 犯罪论体系第五章 构成要件符合性(2学时)第一节 构成要件的概念一、构成要件的意义与机能二、构成要件理论三、构成要件的分类第二节 行为主体一、自然人二、法人第三节 实行行为一、实行行为概述二、不作为犯三、间接正犯第四节 结果一、结果与犯罪的成立二、结果与犯罪的终了第五节 因果关系与客观归责一、因果关系与客观归责概说二、条件说三、原因说四、相当因果关系说五、合法则的条件说六、重要说七、客观归责理论第六节 主观的构成要件要素一、主观的构成要件要素概说二、特殊的主观构成要件要素第六章 违法性(3学时)第一节 违法性的概念一、违法性的意义二、客观的违法性与主观的违法性三、形式的违法性与实质的违法性四、结果无价值与行为无价值第二节 违法性阻却事由概说一、违法性阻却事由的意义二、违法性阻却事由的本质三、主观的正当化要素四、违法性阻却事由的分类第三节 正当防卫一、正当防卫的意义与问题二、正当防卫的要件三、防卫过当四、假想防卫与假想防卫过当第四节 紧急避险一、紧急避险的概念二、紧急避险的正当化根据三、紧急避险的要件四、避险过当与假想避险第五节 其他违法性阻却事由一、法令行为二、正当业务行为三、自损行为四、被害人承诺五、推定的承诺第七章 责任(3学时)第一节 责任的概念一、责任的意义二、责任的本质三、责任论的基础四、责任的要素第二节 责任能力一、责任能力的意义二、责任能力的本质三、无责任能力与限定责任能力四、刑事未成年人五、原因自由行为第三节 故意一、故意的概念二、故意的地位三、关于故意的学说第四节 过失一、过失的概念二、旧过失论与修正的旧过失论三、新过失论四、超新过失论第五节 违法性意识一、违法性意识概述二、违法性意识的学说三、违法性意识的对象与形态四、违法性的错误的“回避可能性”的判断五、事实的错误与违法性错误的界限第六节 期待可能性一、期待可能性理论的产生二、期待可能性的法律性质第八章 未遂犯(2学时)第一节 未遂犯概说一、未遂犯的概念与形态二、未遂犯的处罚范围第二节 障碍未遂一、障碍未遂的概念与成立条件二、犯罪的决意三、实行的着手第三节不能犯第四节 中止犯一、中止犯的概念二、中止犯减免刑罚的根据三、中止犯的成立条件四、中止犯的定罪第五节 预备罪一、预备罪的概念二、预备罪的种类三、预备罪的中止第九章 共犯(2学时)第一节 共犯的基本观念一、共犯的概念与种类二、正犯与共犯三、共犯的本质第二节 共同正犯一、共同正犯的概念二、共同正犯的要件三、过失的共同正犯四、结果加重犯的共同正犯第三节狭义的共犯一、教唆犯二、帮助犯三、教唆犯、帮助犯与共同正犯的区别 第四节 共犯论的其他问题一、共犯与身份二、共犯与错误三、共犯与中止犯第十章 罪数论(2学时)第一节 罪数论概述第二节本来的一罪第三节 科刑上一罪第四节并合罪一、并合罪的概念二、并合处理的原则第十一章 刑罚概述(2学时)第一节 刑罚的概念第二节 刑罚权第十二章 刑罚的种类(2学时)第一节 刑罚种类概述第二节死刑第三节自由刑第四节财产刑第五节资格刑第十三章刑罚的适用(2学时)第一节 法定刑——刑罚的法定第二节 处断刑——法定刑的修正第三节宣告刑——刑罚的量定(量刑)第十四章刑罚的执行(2学时)第一节 各种刑罚的执行第二节缓刑第三节假释第四节 刑罚的消灭第十五章 保安处分(2学时) 第一节 保安处分概述第二节 保安处分的一般要件第三节 保安处分的适用与执行 四、学时分配(要求列表说明)章节学 时 分 配讲课 习题课 实验课 上机课 讨论课 其他 合计第一章 2 2第二章 2 2第三章 2 2第四章 2 2第五章 2 2第六章 3 3第七章 3 3第八章 2 2第九章 2 2第十章 2 2第十一章 2 2第十二章 2 2第十三章 2 2第十四章 2 2第十五章 2 2合计32 32五、习题及自学要求课堂会随机发问部分思考题。
刑法研究方向硕士研究生必读刑法书目

刑法研究方向硕士研究生必读刑法书目1.张明楷:《刑法学》(2007年第 3版 2011年第 4版2.张明楷:《未遂犯论》3.张明楷:《刑法格言的展开》4.张明楷:《外国刑法纲要》5.张明楷:《法益初论》6.张明楷:《刑法的基本立场》7.张明楷:《刑法分则的解释原理》(2004年第 1版、 2011年第 2版8.张明楷《诈骗罪与金融诈骗罪研究》9.张明楷:《罪刑法定与刑法解释》10. 张明楷:《犯罪构成体系与构成要件要素》11. 陈兴良:《教义刑法学》12. 陈兴良:《判例刑法学》13. 陈兴良:《刑法知识论》14. 陈兴良、周光权著《刑法学的现代展开》 , 中国人民大学出版社出版社, 2006年版15. 陈兴良:《刑法方法论研究》16. 陈兴良:《刑法哲学》(修订第 3版17. 陈兴良:《规范刑法学》(第 2版18. 周光权:《刑法总论》19. 赵秉志:《刑法总则要论》20. 高铭暄主编:《刑法专论》(上下编,高等教育出版社21. 王作富主编:《刑法分则实务研究》(第四版4、马克昌主编《犯罪通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999年版5、马克昌主编《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999年版9、李海东著《刑法原理入门(犯罪论基础》,法律出版社 1998年版10、储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社, 2003年11、邱兴隆著《关于惩罚的哲学——刑罚根据论》,法律出版社 2000年版 18、最高人民法院编《刑事审判参考》,法律出版社台湾学者著作:1、黄荣坚:《基础刑法学》2、陈子平:《刑法总论》3、林东茂:《刑法综览》4、林钰雄:《新刑法总则》5、许玉秀:《当代刑法思潮》6、林山田:《刑法通论》7、林山田:《刑法各罪论》国外学者著作:1、【日】大谷实:《刑法讲义总论》2、【德】罗克辛:《德国刑法学总论》3、【德】耶塞克,魏根特:《德国刑法教科书》4、【意】帕多瓦尼:《意大利刑法学原理》5、【法】斯特法尼:《法国刑法总论精义》我要求你读的书大都为刑法界我较喜欢的几位大家的著作。
外国法纲要读书笔记

关于《外国刑法纲要》的一点感想最近,我有幸拜读了张明楷教授的《外国刑法纲要》(第二版)一书。
这本书成书于2007年,由张明楷教授亲自撰写。
关于该书的主要内容,按照张教授在前言里的说法,该书旨在对《外国刑法纲要》第一版的充实和补充。
因为该书的第一版成书于1991年,出版于1999年,相对于当今的外国刑法研究而言,已经是内容陈旧,疏漏百出。
近年来不少国家修订了刑法典,也涌现出不少的青年学者和新鲜的刑法理论,因此第一版已经不能满足我国刑法学界对于外国刑法研究的需要。
正是出于这种考虑,张教授专门在次撰写了《外国刑法纲要》(第二版),以便于国内学者对于外国刑法学的学习和研究。
在我得以通读全书之后,总的感觉是这本书是刑法学界很有特色的一部理论著作。
这本书的主要特点在于比较全面的对比分析了外国刑法的相关理论和具体分则,并对存在的一些争议和问题发表了自己的意见,并且从自己坚持的基本立场出发去解释具体的法律条文,讨论具体的疑难问题。
在论证自身具体观点的合理性时,非常注重前后立场的一致和自身理论体系的统一,避免出现具体观点之间的自相矛盾,这表现出了作者极高的刑法学理论造诣。
现在国内大多数刑法学学者在刑法理论的研究的过程中,基本上是由法条出发,就事论事,首先形成一系列的具体观点,在各方面的知识储备达到一定程度时,才初步形成具有一定特色的刑法理论体系,而这种体系又很少被自身刻意疏理,显得模糊而杂乱,甚至穷其一生也不能形成统一的刑法立场。
张明楷教授在这方面就显得更加的规范和系统,张教授的理论研究方法受德日刑法学说的影响比较深,注意总结自己的根本出发点,重视对刑法学领域中的最基本的理论问题的研究,思想相对成熟之后即表明自己的理论倾向性,因此在学术研究的高峰期就有了理论的归宿,这在刑法学界是领风气之先的。
当然,是否需要明确的理论立场,在研究到什么阶段形成自己的理论体系,我国的刑法学界是否象德日那样需要有对立的刑法学派,这些问题都尚无定论,还需要历史的检验。
22外国刑法教学大纲

《外国刑法》课程教学大纲课程代码:041432701课程英文名称:The foreign criminal law课程总学时:32 讲课:32 实验:上机:0适用专业:法学大纲编写(修订)时间:2017.06一、大纲使用说明(一)课程的地位及教学目标《外国刑法》隶属于法学,属刑事法学方向,是法学专业的一门选修课。
我国刑法源于、属于大陆法系刑法,外国刑法选取美英刑法进行讲解和介绍。
本课主要介绍英美刑法的基本理论和制度,主要罪名。
对于中国大陆学生,了解英美法系在刑法上的一些理论和犯罪刑罚上的特有规定,将有助于开阔视野、拓展思维。
(二)知识、能力及技能方面的基本要求1.掌握英美刑法的基本理论和犯罪论体系。
2.了解特有罪名和相关刑罚思想和体系。
3.能够结合所学(我国及大陆法系刑法),进行对比研究和思考。
(三)实施说明本教学大纲适用于法学专业本科学生,在教学过程中应确保大纲中重点、难点问题的教授,其他内容可根据学时和学生接受情况酌情安排课时。
本课程应尽量采用案例式、讨论式教学方法。
(四)对先修课的要求要求学生在学完《刑法学》、《刑事诉讼法学》的基础上开设本课程,要求牢固掌握上述课程的基本理论和基本能力,为本课打下坚实的理论基础。
(五)对习题课、实践环节的要求为了锻炼学生分析能力,在习题课上,应多布置些案例,在学生广泛讨论的基础上再进行总结。
(六)课程考核方式1.考核方式:考查。
2.考试目标:在考核学生对外国刑法基本内容、基本原理和基本制度的基础上,重点考核学生分析能力和解决实际问题的能力。
3.成绩构成:本课程的总成绩主要由两部分组成:平时成绩(包括作业情况、出勤情况等)占20%,期末考查成绩占80%。
(七)参考书目《美国刑法》,储槐植著,高教出版社,2004《英美刑法学》,赵秉志主编,中国人民大学出版社,2010二、中文摘要《外国刑法》是法学系学生的专业选修课。
外国刑法也是刑法学的辅助课程,本课程内容主要以国外刑法理论、刑法制度为主线,以专题讲座的形式介绍西方刑法学派的主要观点、罪刑法定主义的起源、派生原则、发展趋势、期待可能性问题、共犯理论、未遂犯的学说、外国死刑制度、关于犯罪构成要件的学说;龙勃罗梭的刑法思想、未成年人刑事责任等内容。
(完整word版)外国刑法纲要

《张明楷—外国刑法纲要》学习笔记第一章刑法与刑法理论第一节刑法的概念和机能1、犯罪法和刑法、保安处分:原则上以习惯为区分,但学者指出“刑法"更注重规范,而“犯罪法”更注重事实,“保安处分”则是指以人身危险性为基础,预防为目的的矫正、感化、医疗等举措。
2、刑法属于公法、司法法、实体法。
(注:行政法和司法法的区别,行政法的指导原理为合目的性、司法法的指导原理为法的安定性——即法的明确性,能够被公民理解和预测)1、相较于民法规范,刑法规范法律要件明确,法律效果严密2、刑法属于裁判规范或行为规范之争:裁判规范:如果出现A的情况,就导致B的后果行为规范:不得从事A行为,应当从事B行为有学者认为,行为规范是从刑罚法规中抽象出来的内在文化规范;有日本学者认为,行为规范是内在于刑罚法规自身的禁止规范和命令规范,如果没有这种禁止规范和命令规范,则刑罚规范本身也无法存在,因此刑法规定的犯罪行为,在社会伦理上也是不被允许的,但两者存在区别。
伦理上不被谴责的行为可能成为刑法上的犯罪行为,而伦理上被谴责的行为也不一定为犯罪行为。
3、E。
Mezger(德国法学家梅兹格)首先提出刑法规范分为评价规范和决定规范.评价规范即一个行为是否有害,由刑法规范进行评价。
决定规范即刑法规范在命令人们实施行为时必须作出符合刑法的意思决定.1、自由保障机能:来源于罪刑法定,即刑法通过制约国家刑罚权的行使,保障行为人不受国家滥用权力的侵害,进而保障国民的个人自由及其他利益的作用。
2、法益保护机能:对特定的法律利益加以保护的作用。
注意:刑法的第二次性质(补充性质),即刑法在法益保护的角度是对其他法律所保护法益的补充,只有当其他法律不足以保护该法益时,刑法才发挥作用——这种刑法和其他法律的关系,被称为刑法的第二性质。
3、行为规制机能:使对犯罪行为的规范评价得以明确,从而对公民的行为进行规范、制约的机能.刑法将一定的行为规定为犯罪并给与刑罚处罚,表明该行为在法律上是无价值的(评价机能),同时命令行为人作出不实施这种行为的决定(决定机能),与前述的评价规范和决定规范相对应。
外国刑法学纲要读后感

外国刑法学纲要读后感篇一外国刑法学纲要读后感嘿,朋友!最近我读了一本超厉害的书——《外国刑法学纲要》,这可真是让我大开了眼界!刚开始翻开这本书的时候,我心里还犯嘀咕呢,这能有趣吗?结果,一读就停不下来啦!书中那些外国刑法的理论和案例,就像一个个神秘的盒子,等着我去揭开。
我觉得吧,外国刑法和咱们国内的刑法相比,可能有很多不同的地方。
比如说,有些国家对于某些罪行的定义和处罚方式,简直让我目瞪口呆!这就让我想到,也许法律这个东西,真的是要因地制宜,根据不同国家的文化、历史和社会情况来制定。
不过呢,读的过程中我也有点迷糊。
那么多复杂的条文和概念,感觉脑袋都要炸了!有时候我就想,这些东西真的能在现实中完全落实吗?也许在理想状态下可以,但实际操作起来,可能会有各种各样的问题。
书里讲的一些案例,那叫一个惊心动魄!就好像我自己置身于法庭现场,亲眼目睹着一切。
我一边读一边忍不住问自己,如果我是法官,我会怎么判?这感觉太奇妙了!读完这本书,我觉得自己对法律的理解又深了一层。
但同时我也在想,法律这玩意儿,到底能不能真正做到公平正义?可能有时候它能,但有时候也会有偏差吧。
不管怎样,这本书让我思考了很多,这一路读下来,真好!篇二外国刑法学纲要读后感哇塞!《外国刑法学纲要》这本书,可把我折腾得够呛,但也让我收获满满!刚拿起这本书,我就像个无头苍蝇,到处乱撞。
那些密密麻麻的文字和深奥的理论,简直要把我逼疯了!我心里不停地犯嘀咕:“这啥呀?能看懂才怪!”可是,当我耐着性子读下去,慢慢地,我好像找到了一点门道。
我发现外国刑法学里有好多新奇的东西。
比如说,有些国家对于犯罪的分类方式,和咱们完全不一样,这让我不禁感叹:“世界可真大,法律也各有各的花样!”读着读着,我就开始琢磨了,这些外国的刑法规定,是不是真的能管住那些犯罪分子呢?也许在他们那儿行得通,但放到咱们国家,可能就不适用了。
我觉得吧,法律这东西,不能生搬硬套,得根据实际情况来。
意大利刑法纲要

意大利刑法纲要意大利刑法纲要意大利刑法是一套非常完备的法律制度,用于惩处违法行为和保护公众利益。
下面是关于意大利刑法的纲要。
一、刑事责任和惩罚1. 意大利刑法的基本原则是,犯罪行为必须由人犯下,并且必须在犯罪时具有刑事责任能力。
如果犯罪人没有负有刑事责任的能力,则不能追究刑事责任。
2. 根据意大利刑法,刑事责任有两种类型:有过错的责任和无过错的责任。
有过错的责任适用于那些有意或过失犯下犯罪行为的人。
在这种情况下,罪犯将受到惩罚。
3. 无过错的刑事责任适用于那些没有意图或疏忽犯下犯罪行为的人。
如果罪犯没有意识到自己的行为是违法的,或者在实施行为时不可避免地造成了伤害或死亡,那么他们可能会被免除惩罚。
4. 根据意大利刑法,刑罚分为三种级别:主刑、附加刑和赔偿。
主刑是指罪犯必须服刑。
附加刑是指罪犯必须在服刑期间执行其他任务,例如社区服务。
赔偿是指罪犯必须赔偿受害者因犯罪行为所遭受的经济损失。
二、犯罪和犯罪类型1. 意大利刑法定义犯罪为违反法律,破坏社会秩序和安全的活动。
罪犯将受到法律制裁。
2. 意大利刑法对犯罪行为的定义非常广泛,包括财产犯罪、伤害犯罪、毒品犯罪、性犯罪、恐怖主义犯罪、腐败犯罪等。
3. 犯罪类型分为三种级别:轻罪、重罪和特别重罪。
轻罪包括偷窃、盗窃、非法持有毒品等行为。
重罪包括强奸、谋杀、绑架等行为。
特别重罪包括恐怖主义、罪恶行为和国家危害行为等。
三、刑事诉讼程序1. 意大利刑法确定了一种诉讼程序,使检察官、法庭和被告方得以参与。
诉讼程序包括介入程序、审前程序、公开审判程序和上诉程序。
2. 在审前程序中,检察官或警察将启动刑事调查,以寻找嫌疑人和证据。
审前程序结束后,检察官将做出是否起诉的决定。
3. 公开审判程序是在法庭上进行的。
法官将听取检察官和被告的陈述,并指定律师代表双方。
在公开审判之后,法官将做出判决。
4. 上诉程序是刑事诉讼中的高级程序。
在上诉程序中,双方将就法院的判决提起上诉,以求改判或撤销判决。
外国刑法纲要

外国刑法纲要刑法,作为维护社会秩序和保障公民权利的重要法律规范,在各国的法律体系中都占据着关键地位。
不同国家的刑法,由于其历史、文化、社会和政治背景的差异,呈现出丰富多样的特点。
在探究外国刑法时,我们首先要明确的是刑法的定义和功能。
无论在哪个国家,刑法的核心功能都是通过对犯罪行为的认定和惩罚,来维护社会的公共安全、秩序和公平正义。
然而,具体的犯罪定义和刑罚方式却因国而异。
以德国刑法为例,其具有严谨和系统的特点。
德国刑法对于犯罪的分类细致入微,不仅包括常见的刑事犯罪,如盗窃、杀人等,还涵盖了经济犯罪、环境犯罪等新兴领域。
在刑罚的设置上,注重刑罚的多样性和个别化,除了传统的监禁刑,还有罚金刑、社区服务刑等。
而且,德国刑法强调犯罪构成要件的明确性和精确性,要求在认定犯罪时必须严格按照法律规定的构成要件进行判断。
再看美国刑法,由于其联邦制的政治体制,刑法体系相对复杂。
联邦刑法和各州刑法并存,各州之间在犯罪的定义和刑罚上存在一定的差异。
美国刑法注重对被告人权利的保护,例如著名的“米兰达警告”,要求警察在对犯罪嫌疑人进行讯问前,必须告知其享有的权利。
同时,美国刑法对于刑罚的执行也有独特的方式,如假释制度和社区矫正的广泛应用。
日本刑法则深受其传统文化和社会价值观的影响。
在犯罪分类上,特别强调对公共秩序和社会伦理的维护。
在刑罚方面,相对较为注重刑罚的教育和改造功能,对于一些轻微犯罪,往往会采用缓刑等方式给予犯罪人改过自新的机会。
英国刑法作为现代刑法的重要源头之一,有着悠久的历史和深厚的传统。
其刑法体系在不断发展的过程中,逐渐形成了以判例法为重要组成部分的特点。
法官在具体案件中的判决对于后续类似案件的处理具有重要的参考价值。
了解外国刑法,不仅能够帮助我们拓宽法律视野,还能够为我国刑法的发展和完善提供有益的借鉴。
例如,在犯罪的分类和定义方面,我们可以参考其他国家的先进经验,使我国刑法更加科学合理。
在刑罚的设置和执行上,也可以借鉴他国的成功做法,提高刑罚的效果和社会的接受度。
外国刑法纲要论文

中外犯罪构成理论比较研究摘要:犯罪构成理论是刑法理论的基石、核心、灵魂,惟以其为基础,刑法理论体系方得以构筑成型。
在我国犯罪构成这一理论现象本属于“舶来品”,经过长期的理论实践研究,目前我国已形成了四要件的犯罪构成理论体系,但是这一理论体系还存在诸多缺陷。
本文通过对我国现阶段的犯罪构成理论进行评析,加以与其它国家犯罪构成理论进行比较研究,在此基础上对我国犯罪构成理论发展提出建议,以期有益于我国刑法理论的发展。
一、犯罪构成的概述论及犯罪构成,首先要对犯罪构成的概念进行研究。
因为犯罪构成虽然是刑法理论中的一个最为常用的概念,但在理解与使用上又十分混乱。
在我国刑法学界,对于什么是犯罪构成、其本质为何的观点,可谓林林总总、纷繁复杂。
下面对不同法系、不同国家有关犯罪构成的概念加以论述,并给予适当的归纳综述。
(一)大陆法系的犯罪构成1796年,德国刑法学家克拉因首先把Cropus delicti译为德语Tatbestand,即犯罪构成,但是当时只有诉讼法的意义。
直到19世纪初,德国著名刑法学家费尔巴哈才明确地把犯罪构成引入刑法,使之成为一个实体法的概念。
费尔巴哈是心理强制说的创始人,也是罪刑法定的首倡者。
罪刑法定是法治原则在刑法上的体现,它要求把任何行为作为犯罪并对之科以任何刑罚,都必须根据法律的规定来确定。
从这一原则出发费尔巴哈把刑法分则上关于犯罪成立的条件称之为犯罪构成,指出:犯罪构成就是违法行为中所包含的各个行为的或事实的诸要件的综合。
这一思想在他主持制定的1813年《巴伐利亚刑法典》中得以体现。
该刑法典第27条规定:“当违法行为包括依法属于某概念的全部要件时,就认为它是犯罪”。
这个时期的犯罪构成理论还没有形成一个完整的理论体系。
现代大陆法系的犯罪构成理论是在20世纪初开始建立的,通过贝林格、迈兹格、莫拉哈等学者的努力,将犯罪构成要件的内容分为两个方面:一为行为之要素,包括目的意思以及意思活动。
二为结果之要素,因为犯罪当然亦涉及对法益的侵害,所以构成要件中又常包含刑法上认为重要的某种侵害法益的结果。
外国刑法纲要

外国刑法纲要刑法作为维护社会秩序和保障公民权利的重要法律规范,在不同国家有着各自的特点和发展轨迹。
外国刑法体系丰富多样,了解其概要对于拓展法律视野、促进法学研究以及加强国际法律交流都具有重要意义。
在众多具有代表性的外国刑法体系中,大陆法系和英美法系的刑法占据着重要地位。
大陆法系的刑法以法典化为主要特征,如德国、法国等国家的刑法典,结构严谨,逻辑严密,对犯罪和刑罚的规定较为系统和详尽。
而英美法系的刑法则更多地依赖于判例法,通过法官在具体案件中的判决逐渐形成和发展刑法规则,具有较强的灵活性和适应性。
德国刑法以其精确性和科学性著称。
其犯罪构成理论体系成熟,对犯罪的分类细致入微。
在刑罚方面,注重刑罚的目的和功能,强调刑罚的教育和改造作用。
同时,德国刑法对于犯罪的认定和量刑有着严格的程序和标准,保障了司法的公正性和准确性。
法国刑法则具有浓厚的人文主义色彩。
它强调对公民权利的保护,在犯罪的定义和处罚上,充分考虑社会的发展和变化。
法国刑法还注重刑法与其他法律部门的协调配合,形成一个有机的法律体系。
英美法系中的英国刑法,其判例法传统使得刑法规则能够根据社会实际情况不断调整和更新。
在犯罪分类上,注重犯罪的实质危害性。
美国刑法则受到联邦制的影响,既有联邦刑法,又有各州的刑法,存在一定的差异和复杂性。
在外国刑法中,犯罪的构成要件通常包括犯罪主体、犯罪主观方面、犯罪客观方面和犯罪客体。
犯罪主体是指实施犯罪行为的人,其年龄、精神状态等因素可能影响刑事责任的承担。
犯罪主观方面包括故意和过失,故意又分为直接故意和间接故意,过失分为疏忽大意的过失和过于自信的过失。
犯罪客观方面则涵盖了犯罪行为、犯罪结果以及行为与结果之间的因果关系。
犯罪客体是指刑法所保护的社会关系。
关于刑罚的种类,各国也有所不同。
常见的刑罚包括主刑和附加刑。
主刑如有期徒刑、无期徒刑、死刑等;附加刑如罚金、剥夺政治权利、没收财产等。
在刑罚的裁量方面,各国通常会考虑犯罪的性质、情节、社会危害程度以及犯罪人的个人情况等因素。
外国刑法 课程简介与教学大纲

《外国刑法》课程简介课程内容:外国刑法是法学专业课的选修课程,该课系统地介绍大陆法系刑法的基本原理,主要以德、意、日现行刑法的基本理论为根基。
此课内容分为五个部分;共十八章。
本课程对外国刑法学中的“刑法气“犯罪成立要件,二“犯罪类型〃、“罪数”以及“刑罚”等问题进行了透彻解析。
通过本课程的学习,要求学生全面掌握外国刑法的基本知识,基本概念,并能够运用所学知识和理论分析和解决实际案件。
众所周知,大陆法系刑法学源远流长,既有着深厚的历史人文底蕴,又充满了引人入胜的思辨色彩。
各种学说,争奇斗艳;各家大师,学派林立。
但是考虑到教学课时的要求,以及我们的教学水平和学生的基础知识的限制,在该课程中,我们还只是介绍和论述了大陆法系刑法学的基本问题,而对一些重要理论问题尚未作追本溯源的深入讲解。
只是留给对这方面有趣的学生去深入探讨。
Brief IntroductionCourse Description:Foreign criminal law is a choice subject in legal major .It introduces the basic theories of continental criminal law. criminal law of German, Italy and Japan are regarded as bases. The subject is divided into five parts, there9re 18 chapters in it. Teacher mainly study criminal law ,Elements of the constitutions of crimes, Types of Crimes, Quantity of offences .punishment, etc. in foreign criminal law science.It is well known that the origin of continental criminal law is long .It deposits both abundant historical human culture and colours of Philosophy . A lot of ideaes mutual struggle for each other. Some schools contradict. Due to limit of time, teaching level and student basic knowledge we only elaborates the basic questions of foreign criminal law. But for some abstract therical questions. We lets some interesting students to carefully and wholly discuss.《外国刑法》课程教学大纲一、教学内容第一编刑法第一章刑法与刑法理论1.1刑法的概念和机能1.2刑法的法源和解释1.3刑法理论教学重点:刑法的含义和机能;刑法解释的主要内容。
外国刑法大纲

《外国刑法专题》教学大纲第一部分大纲说明一、课程的性质和任务《外国刑法》是法学系学生的专业选修课。
外国刑法学也是刑法学的辅助课程,本课程内容主要以大陆法系国家的刑法理论、刑法制度为主线,以专题讲座的形式介绍西方两大刑法学派的主要观点、罪刑法定主义的起源、派生原则、发展趋势、期待可能性问题、共犯理论、未遂犯的学说、外国死刑制度、关于犯罪构成要件的学说;龙勃罗梭的刑法思想、未成年人刑事责任等内容。
通过教学,使学生了解外国刑法的基本理论、基本规定,开阔视野、拓展知识面。
二、先修课程: 法理学、民法、宪法学、刑法与刑事诉讼法。
三、课程教学的基本要求了解:大陆法系国家刑事立法的基本理念、基本规定。
理解:西方国家两大刑法学派;犯罪构成的学说;罪刑法定主义;期待可能性;死刑制度;共犯;未遂犯;龙勃罗梭的刑法思想;保安处分;俄罗斯刑法中未成年人刑事责任等。
四、教学方法与教学形式建议1、要较为系统、准确地理解外国刑法的基本理论和基本规定,在原理的阐述和案例的列举中应自觉与我国刑法的相关规定进行比较。
通过比较,将不同的现象区别开来,了解事物之间的共性及个性特质,权衡利弊得失,获得规律性的认识。
2、课堂教学应着重于重点的归纳、难点的讲解。
指导学生课外查阅相关的资料,提高分析问题的能力。
五、课程教学要求的层次教学要求中,按“知道、了解、理解”三个层次要求。
“知道”即要一般性地掌握外国刑法的有关内容;“了解”即要清楚地掌握外国刑法的有关内容;“理解”即要非常清楚地掌握有关内容并能够归纳分析。
第二部分多种媒体教材一体化总体设计方案一、学时分配本课程为学分,课内学时为32,每年春季学期开设。
具体学时分配如下表:二、教材1、主教材和辅助教材主教材是教学的基本依据,其内容是教学大纲所规定的教学基本内容。
要求教材体系完整,文字简洁,概念准确,论证清楚,案例应用恰当。
本课程的主教材:《外国刑法纲要》,张明揩劲著,清华大学出版社1999年版。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
《张明楷-外国刑法纲要》学习笔记
第一章刑法与刑法理论
第一节刑法的概念和机能
1、犯罪法和刑法、保安处分:原则上以习惯为区分,但学者指出“刑法”更注重规范,而“犯罪法”更注重事实,“保安处分”则是指以人身危险性为基础,预防为目的的矫正、感化、医疗等举措。
2、刑法属于公法、司法法、实体法。
(注:行政法和司法法的区别,行政法的指导原理为合目的性、司法法的指导原理为法的安定性——即法的明确性,能够被公民理解和预测)
1、相较于民法规范,刑法规范法律要件明确,法律效果严密
2、刑法属于裁判规范或行为规范之争:
裁判规范:如果出现A的情况,就导致B的后果
行为规范:不得从事A行为,应当从事B行为
有学者认为,行为规范是从刑罚法规中抽象出来的内在文化规范;有日本学者认为,行为规范是内在于刑罚法规自身的禁止规范和命令规范,如果没有这种禁止规范和命令规范,则刑罚规范本身也无法存在,因此刑法规定的犯罪行为,在社会伦理上也是不被允许的,但两者存在区别。
伦理上不被谴责的行为可能成为刑法上的犯罪行为,而伦理上被谴责的行为也不一定为犯罪行为。
3、E.Mezger(德国法学家梅兹格)首先提出刑法规范分为评价规范和决定规范。
评价规范即一个行为是否有害,由刑法规范进行评价。
决定规范即刑法规范在命令人们实施行为时必须作出符合
刑法的意思决定。
1、自由保障机能:来源于罪刑法定,即刑法通过制约国家刑罚权的行使,保障行为人不受国家滥用权力的侵害,进而保障国民的个人自由及其他利益的作用。
2、法益保护机能:对特定的法律利益加以保护的作用。
注意:刑法的第二次性质(补充性质),即刑法在法益保护的角度是对其他法律所保护法益的补充,只有当其他法律不足以保护该法益时,刑法才发挥作用——这种刑法和其他法律的关系,被称为刑法的第二性质。
3、行为规制机能:使对犯罪行为的规范评价得以明确,从而对公民的行为进行规范、制约的机能。
刑法将一定的行为规定为犯罪并给与刑罚处罚,表明该行为在法律上是无价值的(评价机能),同时命令行为人作出不实施这种行为的决定(决定机能),与前述的评价规范和决定规范相对应。
4、自由保障机能和法益保护机能之间的博弈,现代刑法采纳罪刑法定,即是对部分法益的放弃
刑法的谦抑主义:刑法适当、谦虚的适用。
表现为三个方面:一是补充性;二是不完整性——直译:断片性(由补充性延伸而来,不必涉及生活的方方面面);三是宽容性,即便收到侵害,且其他法律也没有起到应有的作用,也不必毫无遗漏的处罚。
——【日本】平野龙一
谦抑主义不仅包括刑法的解释和适用,也包括立法的谦抑主义第二节刑法理论
狭义刑法学:刑法解释学
广义刑法学:刑法解释学、刑法理论(刑法哲学)、刑法史学、比较刑法
最广义刑法学:广义刑法学、刑事学(犯罪学和犯罪对策学)张明楷观点:刑法学应包括刑法解释学和刑法哲学,因为刑法解释学的基础为刑法哲学
(一)旧派(古典学派)和新派(近代学派、实证学派)的产生
1、前期旧派(18世纪中后期至19世纪上半期,1750-1850):主要特点在于否定封建刑法的四大特点:
干涉性(涉及各个领域)——社会契约论
恣意性(罪无法定)——只有按照规定才能定罪,官员无权任意定罪
身份性(地位决定结果)——每个人都应由与其地位相同的人来裁决
残酷性(生命刑和身体刑)——正确的刑法只要能阻止其犯罪即可
贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》全面否定封建刑法四个特点
费尔巴哈:最大的贡献在于明确将罪刑法定和法律与伦理的区别纳入刑法理论体系中
边沁:排斥刑法的干涉性,承认国家权力的无限性与不可分割性但认为国家权力必须受到其存在目的——保护臣民福祉的限制。
泷川幸辰:主张罪刑法定,明确区分法律和道德
前期旧派概括:主张自由意识(认为犯罪只是某个犯罪人孤立
的自由意识的结果,而不承认外在社会因素的影响)、行为主义(行为主义:研究的对象,刑罚的中心是“行为”,而不是行为人,因此不注重对“行为人”的研究,行为主义也是一般预防的基础)、道义责任、报应刑、一般预防。
即旧派多以人本位为主认,为犯罪是侵害臣民福祉的行为,因此要对其进行报应式惩罚,使其受到痛苦,因此属于一般预防(一般预防和特殊预防的区别:一般预防仅针对已经犯罪的人进行惩处,而特殊预防在于对于特定类型的人进行有针对的预防)。
2、新派
产生原因:社会的发展(工业革命)决定社会本位的新派观点诞生;同时犯罪学的发展(从统计学发展出犯罪学,从而对自由意识为主要论点的古典学派产生了冲击;人类学派又肯定了人类学、遗传学对犯罪的重要性;菲力又在论著中明确指出了社会的、物理的要素;这些论点都论证了犯罪的中心不是“行为”而是“行为人”,以研究犯罪行为人性格为主要方向,强调特殊预防)
新派概括:主张决定论、行为人主义、社会的责任、改善刑、特殊预防。
新派否认由自由意识产生犯罪,认为犯罪一定有其原因,仅对已发生的行为进行责难,不足以防止犯罪,而犯罪原因中重要的是人的性格,因此认为改善性格有助于防止犯罪,刑罚是一种改善的手段,刑罚的目的在于预防人再次犯罪,而对于具有危险性格的人,不管是否具有道义上的责任,基于社会生活的必须,必须让其承担责任。
(二)旧派和新派的基本对立:p13
1、研究人为什么犯罪——旧派:个人意识;新派:个人意识和所处环境的综合产物——自由意识和决定主义的争论
2、国家观和世界观的对立——个人本位主义和社会本位主义
3、犯罪论领域的客观主义和主观主义——但新旧两派均承认犯罪应当是主客观相统一的结果,但在客观要素和主观要素之间的侧重,则是有所区别。
客观主义强调行为的及其实际的损害,因此要求罪刑法定,而主观主义侧重对于人的危险性(反复犯罪的危险性),主张特殊防卫为目的的社会防卫,因此犯罪人的危险性是处以刑罚的基础。
但现代刑法研究表明,危险性本身只能通过外在的行为才能表现出来,危险性只能在有外在侵害行为时才能成立犯罪。
4、构成要件——旧派主张条文的具体化、既定化(基于行为主义,以行为为研究的对象,因而主张犯罪行为的既定),而新派则则有部分学者主张类推(基于行为人主义,主要针对行为人的危险性,而对于行为的外在表现认为并不重要,因此主张灵活的解释,因而肯定类推)
5、违法性领域——基本不对立
6、责任领域——道义责任论和社会责任论的对立
7、刑罚论的区别——报应主义(善有善报、恶有恶报)和目的主义(刑罚的正当化的根据在于目的正当化,是对破坏社会秩序行为的处罚)的对立
张明楷观点:新旧学派的对立,实际上是刑法学和犯罪学的初始对立,旧派主要研究刑法规范本身,而不研究犯罪对策,在具体适用规范时,往往会关注行为人个体的特殊性,但在解释犯罪时,往往关注抽象的人;而新派则基于犯罪学的发展而必定研究犯罪人和犯罪的对策,主张特殊预防,而可以肯定的是,新派已经退出历史舞台,现代的刑法学对立,只是旧派的内部对立。
第二章刑法的基本原则
第一节刑法的基本原则概述
第二节罪刑法定原则:p19
一般罪刑法定的法律渊源确定为1215年英王约翰签署的《大宪章》39条规定。
现代意义的罪刑法定法律渊源是法国1789年《人权宣言》和1810年的《法国刑法典》。
1801年教科书,法无明文规定不为罪,法无明文规定不处罚。
罪刑法定的思想渊源为三权分立和心理强制说(认为人都有私欲,而由于人类行为和行为所产生的快感因而会犯罪,为了抑制犯罪就要通过既定的法律规定让人感受到因为犯罪而产生的不快,从而抑制犯罪)
1、民主主义。
刑法的处罚范围直接关系到人民的人身、财产等权益,属于重大事项,应当由人民决定,而具体的人民无法自行决定,因此有必要由人民选出立法机关,代表人民制定刑法,由于刑法是人民意识的体现,故应当最大限度保护人民的自由和权利,因此刑法有适当性。
2、保障人权主义。
保障人民的最大权益意味着不会使人民产生不安。
而不成文或者不既定的法律,使得人民因为无法预测自己的行为是否有违法性而感到不安,因此推导出法的既定性。
3、一般预防。
既然要起到预防的目的,则必须让预防的对象明确,哪些是明确禁止的。
4、责任主义。
以责任主义为基础的科处刑罚,必然要让人知。