The relationship between the doctrine of criminal law and criminal policy: from Liszt's gulf to the relationship between Roxin and Chen Xingliang's strategy under the context of China. The author cuts through Liszt's gulf. Liszt strictly defined the criminal law doctrine and the criminal policy: criminal law doctrine becomes a form of empirical discipline, completely rejects the value judgment, and thus forms the classical theory of crime; The criminal policy is based on the theory of criminal law. It is based on the idea of ​​purpose, especially the effect of special prevention. Liszt’s idea of ​​separating and alienating criminal law dogmatism from criminal policy forms the so-called “Liszt Gap” after the neoclassical crime theory system and the objective behavioral criminal theory system. Roxin divides Liszt’s Through this system, criminal policy will be introduced into the criminal theory system to make the constituent elements substantive, unlawful, and culpable, thus forming a rational criminal theory system. This article focuses on the question of how to develop the relationship between criminal law teaching and criminal policy in the context of China and has carried out a preliminary and reflective inquiry. He believes that China has not yet established criminal law teaching. Therefore, Liszt Inspiring. However, we do not need to go back to Liszt and it is not necessary to re-leap the Liszt gap, but we can directly enjoy the results of Roxin. This article emphasizes that in China's current criminal law doctrine research, it is necessary to use criminal policy as the guide for the teaching of criminal law, and it is even more important to control the boundary of criminal policy through the teaching of criminal law.

Professor Lao Dongyan made the following judgment in his thesis: In the recent criminal law study in China, the Criminal Law and the Prof. Yan Mei of Peking University School of Law.

The topic of the relationship between criminal policies is increasingly attracting attention. “1” I agree with this judgment.In our country’s previous studies, criminal law and criminal policy were studied as two separate disciplines, so there was a big gap between criminal law and criminal policy. Alienation: Now that the relationship between criminal law and criminal policy has entered the field of theoretical research, it shows that the relationship between criminal law dogma and criminal policy is integrated and penetrating. This is the best of both worlds and studies for criminal law and criminal policy research. It deserves full recognition. With regard to the relationship between criminal law teaching and criminal policy, this article traces Liszt, a German scholar, to describe Liszt's gap between its criminal law dogma and criminal policy, and expounds the German scholar Roxin's linking Liszt's gulf. Both Roxin and Roxin are linked to the German issue. How does this German issue unfold in China's context and explore China's consciousness? This is the focus of this article.

The German scholar Liszt is not only a famous criminal jurist, but also an important advocate of criminal policy. When discussing the relationship between criminal law and criminal policy, Liszt proposed a proposition that is still widely circulated today: Criminal law is an insurmountable barrier to criminal policy. "This sentence has also been translated into: criminal law is an insurmountable barrier to criminal policy." Liszt's proposition, to a certain extent, revealed (for Liszt) the tension between criminal law and criminal policy . Liszt means that the criminal law has the function of protecting legal interests. This kind of legal interest is a kind of life benefit, and therefore it is also a kind of public interest. The criminal law achieves the purpose of protecting the law by punishing the crime. At the same time, Liszt also pointed out: “Individual freedom must not be sacrificed without principle for the public interest... In a legal system, only when the hostile thoughts of the perpetrators are manifested by the expressly prescribed behavior, the criminals can be sentenced by the perpetrators.” Therefore, in the eyes of Liszt, the realization of criminal policy should be limited by the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. From this we can see that Liszt understood the relationship between criminal law and criminal policy from an external perspective and revealed the contradiction between the two. Liszt’s views on the relationship between criminal law and criminal policy provide a realistic legal basis for the relationship between criminal law and criminal policy.

〔1〕Lou Dongyan: "Value judgments in the interpretation of criminal policy and criminal law - Concurrently discussing the 'criminal crimes' in interpretation theory" Political and Legal Forum [2] (Germany) Klaus Roxin : Criminal Policy and Criminal Law System (2nd Edition), translated by Cai Guisheng, Renmin University of China Press, 2011, page 7, Translator's Note.

[3] (German) Liszt: "German Criminal Law Textbook" (Revised Version), translated by Xu Jiusheng, Law Press 2006, page 23. It can be said that Liszt’s separation between criminal law and criminal policy is binary. The point of view is exactly the theoretical projection of the dual distinction between criminal law and criminal policy. Therefore, there is a close correlation between these two propositions, so that they are united and not separated from each other. This article also does not deliberately distinguish between the above two propositions. It only differs where it is needed.

Based on this external understanding of the relationship between criminal law teaching and criminal policy, Liszt’s dualistic conception is formed. [4] The duality concept here refers to the separation of the criminal law doctrine, which is based on the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, and the criminal policy, which punishes the necessity and purpose of crime. In this regard, German scholars described the bipolar structure of Liszt’s classical criminal law system as follows: “On the other side, through objectivism and formalism, it provides the most reliable legal security for preconditions for punishment; The people-centered sanctions system achieves the highest degree of purpose."53 Of course, Liszt's dual structure of the doctrine of criminal law and criminal policy is not to emphasize the hostility between the two, but is based on differences in their respective properties. The criminal law and criminal policy will be alienated as much as possible. In spite of this, Liszt realized the external system of criminal law teaching and criminal policy within the framework of the overall criminal law. In this regard, German scholars pointed out that in order to overcome the one-sidedness of the profession and achieve the organic unity of each part, it is the great goal pursued by Feng Lisht and he calls it the 'integral criminal law' (gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft). Due to the differences in the tasks and methods of various professions, there is no unified discipline in this field, but it promotes mutual understanding and professional cooperation in various disciplines. “6) Below, I describe the criminal law doctrine and criminal policy in Liszt’s overall criminal jurisprudence. (1) Liszt: The classical school of criminal law Liszt is the founder of the classic crime theory system. The criminal law doctrine established on the basis of the classical crime theory system has brought modern criminal law into an epoch-making development stage.With regard to the doctrine of criminal law, Liszt once pointed out that the next task of criminal law is: From the purely legal science and technology From the point of view, relying on criminal legislation, the next definition of crime and punishment, the specific provisions of the criminal law, and even each basic concept and basic principles of the criminal law developed into a perfect system......

As a very practical science, in order to adapt to the needs of criminal justice and to extract more nutrition from judicial practice, criminal law must be self-contained, because only by systematicizing the knowledge in the system can one ensure The unified doctrine of living, otherwise, the use of the law can only stay at the level of half a bottle of vinegar. It is always left by accidental factors and arbitrariness. Liszt put forward the analytical method of purely legal science. This is the method of legal teaching. In addition, Liszt also emphasized the systematization and systematization of criminal law knowledge, thus establishing the doctrine system of criminal law. It can be said that it was Liszt who pointed out the development path of modern criminal jurisprudence and freed criminal law from political, religious, and ideological entanglement to form a self-contained knowledge system. In the knowledge system of the doctrine of criminal law, the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for crimes is a fundamental value pursuit. Within the framework of legally prescribed punishment for crimes, the doctrine of criminal law should follow the positivist analysis method, and this positivism excludes value judgments. It should be pointed out here that Liszt’s teachings of criminal law doctrines are actually crimes but do not include penalties, and they refer to Roxin with three [4], see note (2), p. 53, author's postscript.

[5] (German) Hans Heinrich Jessica, Thomas Weigente: "German Criminal Law Textbook", translated by Xu Jiusheng, China Legal Publishing House [6] with the above, page 53. [7] Liszt, See previous note 〔3〕, page 3 crime theory system is its theoretical form.

In Liszt’s three-tier crime theory, each class embodies this kind of positivism. In this regard, German scholars have vividly described three stages in Liszt’s classical criminology system as objective and narrative component elements, objective and normative limits of illegality, and subjective and narrative culpability theories. . This is exactly what characterizes Liszt’s classical criminology system.

The objective and narrative constituent elements theory In the behavior-centered constituent elements hierarchy, Liszt advocates the theory of causality and defines behavior as the meaning activity that causes external changes. Liszt pointed out: “The desire to express the characteristics of the meaning of the activity and thus the behavioral characteristics here means only Willensimpuls. It can be defined as psychological innervation, which can be understood as psychology. The “process of ascertaining the reason” of the school’s learning””9” thus shows that in Liszt, meaning activity is a kind of psychological phenomenon and should be analyzed by psychological methods. As for the external changes caused by meaning activities, it means the result. The result is that any kind of behavior must be possessed, so the unconstructed behavioral criminal is unthinkable for Liszt. Liszt believes that even if it is dangerous, it itself is a result, a condition that arises from the outside world. For the results, the principles of physics should be applied to describe. As for the causal relationship in criminal law, it is also an objective link between behavior and result. In the judgment of causality, Liszt adopts the conditional statement, also known as the full-conditional value theory. For Liszt, causation is purely objective and does not involve evaluation. Liszt pointed out: We should absolutely insist on the view that the "causal law" (Kausalsatz) only involves the time and space before the incident, does not involve the logical relationship of the concept or the social ethics evaluation of the behavior; in addition, we should also pay special attention to Causality involves a problem of the way of thinking. With this way of thinking, we link the actual conditions and do not make any evaluation of the power that caused the event. 11) Liszt’s discussion of behavior, results, and causality fully reflects his positivist ideas. In this regard, Roxin commented: In all normative constituent elements, taking a causal approach will lead to a complete distortion of illegal objective content.

There is a very famous example in this respect. That is, the insult to sin is interpreted as: When a sound wave is shaken, it creates a sensory stimulus to the hearing of the person. Since this naturalistic phenomenon can also be fully understood as a compliment, the infamy of sin is simply not elaborated here. Ii. The Illegality of the Objective Limitations On the issue of illegality, in the Liszt era there was a dispute between subjective and objective violations. The subjective unlawfulness theory is based on the command theory and interprets the nature of the law as a legal order, and argues that the command is only capable of comprehension of command significance (Phoenix, supra note 2, pp. 65. Based on classical The composition of the factions to describe the crime of insult, there is such a version: a series of throat jitters, blood arrogant, causing people unhappy emotions, as insult. Department of imprisonment up to one year. "The addition of "unpleasant emotions" to this negative content does not seem to be understood as praising others.

The person has its own meaning. Therefore, only the person who understands the ability of commanding meaning (namely, the person with responsibility ability) is deemed to have violated the law of the order and interpreted as illegal. On the contrary, the objective law-breaking nature advocates interpreting as an objective objective evaluation criterion in the law, and it is an illegal act to violate the legal act that is regarded as an objective evaluation criterion. According to this, whether the perpetrator has the ability to understand the legal normative significance (especially the responsibility ability) is not asked. The so-called objective evaluation here generally considers that there should be two kinds of objectivity, that is, the objectivity of the “illegal judgment” and the objectivity of the judgment object. 〔3〕 Therefore, the fundamental difference between subjective unlawfulness theory and objective unlawfulness theory lies in how the relationship between illegality and liability is constructed: subjective unlawfulness denies "unlawful illegality," whereas objective unlawfulness affirms "no responsibility." Illegal." Liszt, of course, stands on the standpoint of objective unlawfulness and declares that "objectivity means that the making of negative evaluation does not depend on the subjective ability of the actor." When Liszt criticized the subjective illegality theory, he pointed out that: The correctness stems from its arbitrary one-sidedness. It ignores the dual function of law, that is, the law is not just an order, that is, an order norm. Moreover, starting from the logical necessity, the law is also an evaluation norm. Only in this regard, the law emerges as an abstract value standard, and its applicability is entirely independent of the subject to be evaluated and the person's behavior. ["Compared to the subjective illegality theory, Liszt's objective law-breaking nature theory has a clear normative standard and is more in line with the logic of positivism. The objective unlawfulness theory also laid the foundation for Liszt’s classical school crime theory. It is based on the proposition that “Illegality is objective and responsibility is subjective”. Liszt also put forward the category of form violations and substance violations on the basis of objective unlawfulness theory. Formal illegality here refers to the act of conforming to the constituent elements. It is not difficult to understand that it has formalistic features. The actual violation of law refers to the infringement or destruction of legal interests. Obviously this is a substantial value judgment. Well, Liszt’s insistence on formalist standards in the judgment of substantive violations is simply incomprehensible.

We can look at Liszt’s assertion that the substance (anti-social) of this illegal act does not depend on the correct evaluation of the legislator (the content is the former jurisprudence). The law can only find it, not make it. Formal and entity violations may overlap, but they may also be separate. We must not infer this contradiction between the physical content of the act and the positive legal evaluation of the act. However, this contradiction has not been ruled out. It still exists. If it exists, then the judge is bound by the law; the modification of the seeing law is detached from its task. [5] Liszt elaborated on the relationship between form violations and entity violations. It can be seen that Liszt's entity's violations are not merely to play a negative excep- tional role after having constituent elements, but to emphasize the establishment of constitutive elements. At that time, legislators set offenses in violation of the law. It is in this sense that Liszt will say that the concept of entity violation is former jurisprudence and that it was not discovered but manufactured. Liszt also discussed the contradiction between formal and entity violations, namely the state of failure to be completely unanimous. This contradiction refers to the fact that the act has physical illegality but is not stipulated by the legislator as a crime. In principle, judges cannot be convicted under the law. Then, does there exist another form of contradiction between violation of law and violation of the law of the entity, that is, the act has constitutional elements but does not have substantial illegality, and Liszt, of course, also recognizes this. However, Liszt thinks that this situation mainly refers to legitimate causes, and only statutory legitimate causes are recognized. [3] See Yu Zhenhua, Theory of Criminal Illegality, Heyuan Beizhao Press, 2001, p. 79, 80. [4] Liszt, supra note 〔3〕, pp. 198, 199. [5] Liszt, supra note 〔3〕, p. 201. The violation of the law is the crime of neoclassicism since then. On the creation of the system. As a result, Liszt still adopts formal judgement standards in the illegal sector. When the German scholar Xu Naiman discussed the concept of illegality in Liszt’s positivist criminological system, he used it. How did this flaw make up, according to Liszt’s positivist concept law, Recht? It is equivalent to the actual law. It does not rely on interpretations made by judges based on precise value judgments, but also the meaning of the law. Therefore, a violation of the constitutive requirements constitutes an inconsistency between the act and the actual law. It is illegal in principle to determine the illegality in the case. Only in order to determine an exception, it must be thoroughly tested to ensure that the violation of the law is prohibited. Cause. Therefore, in Liszt’s criminological system, the illegal class is also a form of judgment.

The subjective-narrative culpability culpability is the subjective basis for assigning an objective crime to an actor after illegal judgment. Under the domination of the classical school proposition that "Illegality is objective and responsibility is subjective", the guilty theory of responsibility based on subjective psychology has taken a leading position. For example, the German scholar Professor Roxin described the concept of psychological culpability based on naturalism. He pointed out that the naturalist ideas in the late 19th century tried to attribute all legal concepts to natural science. The empirical facts of understanding, and the development of such culpability and culpability until the beginning of the 20th century from this point of view are seen as "the types of culpability". At the same time, most people express the imputation ability as "conditions for culpability". Or "condition of penalty".

Professor Roxin listed Liszt as one of the representatives of the concept of psychological culpability. Of course, Liszt was influenced by the concept of normative culpability in his later years. For example, Liszt described the trend from the concept of psychological culpability to the development of normative culpability, and pointed out that the development of the culpability concept has to depend on the concept and nature of the obligation to the inner person (human inner world), and that is the only way. The unique normative features of guilt can be understood. In the latest criminal law, this point was clearly recognized, and the culpability of naturalism and formalism was increasingly thrown away. If the culpability was only explained by specific psychological characteristics, then the concept of culpability was more and more obvious. recognition. [18] Here, Liszt discusses the development of the concept of normative culpability. Although Liszt acknowledged the necessity of normative elements in the judgement of culpability, he still insisted on the importance of psychological facts for culpability, arguing that culpability was not a pure psychological fact, nor a simple value judgment; it was more of a responsibility. The precondition of ability is the evaluation relation between the psychological existence and the value judgment based on the basis; in this sense, the essence of culpability can be simply expressed as: based on the defects of the psychological activity process that caused the illegal behavior, the culpability refers to the illegal behavior. Responsibility. [9][6] See (German) Xu Naiman: Introduction to the Criminal Law System.” Xu Xuxiu and Chen Zhihui, eds., “Devotement and Justice—Professor Xu Naiman’s Translation of Criminal Law Papers”. According to the analysis of the above three elements of Liszt's theory of crime, the knowledge system of the doctrine of criminal law has already formed the function of the Great Charter of the human rights impediment. Therefore, in the teaching of criminal law, In the context, Liszt is a classical school scholar.

(II) Liszt: While the empirical scholars of criminal policy are constructing the criminal law doctrine with the classical criminological system at the core, Liszt initiated the criminal sociology school, and his individual policy of prevention-centered criminal policy was also Highlighted. On this basis, Liszt established the theory of criminal penalty for the purpose of special prevention. Criminal policy is the main content of this criminal theory.

Criminal policy ideology has existed for a long time. For example, in ancient China, the proposition that "the sentence was sentenced to no punishment" had a very strong criminal policy. However, as a systematic criminal policy doctrine is a modern product. It is generally believed that Feuerbach is the initiator of criminal policy. Japanese scholar Zheng Muliang pointed out that the word of criminal policy began to be used in Germany at the end of the 18th century, but now the meaning of criminal policy begins in Feuerbach. He refers to psychology, positive philosophy, general criminal law and criminal policy. As an auxiliary knowledge of criminal law, it gives criminal policy an independent status. “[0] Feuerbach’s criminal policy is marked by psychological coercion, and the general prevention of legal intimidation is the starting point for the subsequent development of criminal policy theory. Feuerbach is a criminal classic. One of the representatives of the school, the core of its criminal law theory is general prevention, also known as negative general prevention, and general prevention constitutes the cornerstone of Feuerbach's theory on the relationship between criminal law and criminal policy. Of course, in Feuerbach's theory The extent to which criminal policy in China is independent of criminal law is a question that can be discussed.

Feuerbach believes that the criminal policy is the sum of the punitive measures that the country uses to fight crime. Moreover, Feuerbach mainly regards criminal policy as a kind of legislative policy and emphasizes the guiding role of criminal policy in criminal legislation. This guiding role is mainly reflected in the formulation of criminal law, the establishment of price lists for crimes, and legal intimidation of citizens. Feuerbach’s legal intimidation includes legislative intimidation and judicial intimidation, pointing out that: Legally, such evil is regulated as an inevitable consequence of the act (statutory deterrence). In order to realize the ideal connection provided by the law, it is understood by all people; the connection of reason prescribed by law will surely appear in real life. Therefore, in the event of an illegal act, it shall be immediately given the evil prescribed by law (execution of judgment). The coordination and effectiveness of the enforcement and legislative powers of deterrence constitute a psychological constraint.

It is worth noting that Feuerbach is also an advocate of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for crimes. One of the practical functions of the principle of legally prescribed punishment for crimes lies in the fact that he must use the certainty of criminal law to exert his desired intimidating effects. Therefore, in Feuerbach, there is an external relationship between criminal policy and criminal law. In a certain sense, criminal law is a tool for realizing criminal policy. It is precisely for this reason that Feuerbach has linked the criminal policy with the actual criminal law, revealing the consistency between the criminal law and the criminal policy pursued in the value goal, and forming the relationship between criminal law and criminal policy with its own characteristics. Roxin commented on Feuerbach's conception of criminal law and criminal policy and pointed out that since Feuerbach era, the intimidation prevention achieved through the principle of legally prescribed punishment for crimes was the foundation of criminal policy. Function and guarantee function (dieMotivations - und die Garantiefunktion) are the same [0] Referred from (Japan) Otani Shi: Criminal Policy Studies (new edition), Li Hong translation, Renmin University of China Press 2009 edition, page 8. (Germany) Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach: "German Penal Code Textbook" (14th Edition), translated by Xu Jiusheng, China Founder Press, 2010, p. 28. Two goals of the concept of criminal policy (Zielvorstellung) aspect. "[2] It can be said that Feuerbach has initially defined the relationship between criminal law and criminal policy, but has not conducted an in-depth study of this.

Liszt is also an important promoter of criminal policy, and his criminal policy ideology has had widespread influence in the European continent.

However, Liszt’s criminal policy ideology is quite different from Feuerbach. Liszt is on the standpoint of the criminal social school and expounds the content of criminal policy based on positivism. There is a big difference between Liszt and Feuerbach's thinking on criminal policy. Liszt's criminal policy ideology can also be seen as a development of Feuerbach. Liszt’s development of Feuerbach’s criminal policy ideology is reflected in the following three aspects: from the criminal policy centered on punishment to the understanding of criminal policy for the purpose of pursuing more criminal countermeasures. What Bhabha has adopted is a more narrow concept, that is, criminal policy is directly linked to criminal law. Criminal law is the only criminal policy measure, and it mainly regards criminal policy as a kind of legislative policy. Although Feuerbach also emphasized the role of justice and execution in achieving criminal policy, Feuerbach considers legal bullying to be the main objective of criminal policy, and psychological coercion is the fundamental means of legal intimidation. Therefore, legislative intimidation is a psychological imperative. The main form, it has a guarantee function for the realization of criminal policy. Japanese scholars once pointed out: "When German criminal jurist Feuerbach used the term 'criminal policy' around 1800, it mainly referred to the criminal legislation policy, but now the concept has a broader meaning, that is, criminal policy. It is the various measures adopted by the state or social groups for the purpose of preventing and repressing crimes.”[3] Liszt is the most widely defined criminal policy here. Liszt divides the meaning of criminal policy into the following three levels: and social countermeasures. The second is a broad-based criminal policy, which includes not only the various systems of penalties and similar penalties, but also the entire system of principles that combat crime. The third is the narrow sense of criminal policy, which clearly distinguishes criminal policy from social policy. It emphasizes that criminal policy first involves the fight against crime through the influence of individual criminals. It can be said that Liszt has greatly expanded the scope of criminal policy. Of course, Liszt's proposition that "the best social policy is the best criminal policy", despite its reasonableness, has been criticized for confusing criminal policy with social policy. Liszt mainly expands the main body of criminal policy from the state to the society, expands the criminal policy measures from penalties to security penalties and other similar penalties, and extends the functions of criminal policy from intimidation prevention to prevention.

From the criminal policy centered on legal intimidation to the criminal policy centered on the correction of offenders, scholars have described the development of criminal policy from Feuerbach to Liszt as the development of traditional criminal policy centered on punishment. To criminal policy aimed at pursuing more crime prevention, [5] this is quite correct. Among them, the criminal policy centered on legal intimidation mainly refers to Feuerbach's doctrine. The criminal policy aimed at pursuing more crime prevention refers to Liszt’s doctrine, which has a very important position on the individual’s concept of personal correction. It should be said that both Feuerbach and Liszt get rid of the retributionism in the purpose of punishment and advocate utilitarianism. However, Feuerbach advocates general prevention based on rule utilitarianism; Liszt advocates special prevention based on behavioral utilitarianism.

[2] Roxin, supra note [2], page 54 [3] (Japan) Morimotoyuki et al.: "Criminal Policy", Dai Bo et al., Chinese People's Public Security University Press, 2004, p. 1 [4] See Yan Li, "The Construction of China's Criminal Policy Rationality", China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2010, page 2 [5] Morimoto et al., see supra note [23], page 1. Indeed, Liszt It does not deny general prevention, but emphasizes that the function of penalty is manifested in the diversity of the penalty effect that can be obtained in the case of meeting the destination application penalty. 2 Of course, in the two aspects of general prevention and special prevention of punishment, Liszt is undoubtedly more focused on special prevention. When discussing the requirements of criminal policy at the current stage and its impact on the development of the latest laws, he pointed out that criminal policy firstly combats crimes through the impact on individuals of criminals. In general, the criminal policy requires that social defense, especially as the penalty for the purpose of punishment, should be appropriate to the characteristics of the offender in terms of punishment and punishment, so as to prevent it from continuing to commit crimes in the future. From this request, we can find reliable standards for the critical evaluation of existing laws on the one hand, and we can also find the starting point for the development of future legislative plans on the other.

During a relatively long period thereafter, the idea of ​​criminal policy centering on correction has always dominated criminal legislation and criminal justice in various countries.

From the Criminal Policy Attached to the Criminal Law to the Criminal Policy Independent of the Criminal Law In the Feuerbach era, although the criminal policy has already been proposed, it still does not have its own independence. It is only attached to the concept of criminal law. Feuerbach’s criminal policy ideology has a clear enlightenment and is a product of a rationalist view of criminal law. For example, Sakamoto scholars pointed out that the influence of modern enlightenment thoughts on criminal policy points out: In particular, Feuerbach, he initially used the phrase “criminal policy”, and he believed that people are making reasonable calculations on the pain caused by criminal punishment and the happiness generated by criminals. If people feel more painful, they will dispel the “rational person” of criminal thoughts. Therefore, the penalty should be through advance foretelling and intimidating people not to commit crimes. This view is called “psychological coercive.” They are from the perspective of preventing crimes. All penalty systems can only be regarded as legitimate when they are effective and necessary. They exceed the concept that the penalty based on the general prevention limit of psychological coercion is an unjustified penalty, and propose a utilitarianism that promotes rationalism. The concept of criminal punishment advocates a criminal policy that eliminates the irrational inhuman treatment of offenders as its basic purpose.

Therefore, in Feuerbach, the only purpose of the criminal policy is to improve the criminal law, and the criminal policy with intimidation can only rely on the criminal law. It is in this sense that Feuerbach’s criminal policy is reduced to a legislative policy. Liszt has, to a large extent, expanded the scope of criminal policy and put all measures that contribute to the fight against crime into the scope of criminal policy. According to this broad concept of criminal policy, criminal policy is not limited to the direct punishment system for the purpose of preventing and controlling crimes. Indirect social policies related to the prevention and control of crimes, such as housing policy, education policy, and labor policy (unemployment policy) and other public protection policies are all included. In this case, the criminal policy is not only to study the criminal law's resistance to crimes, but also, or more importantly, all kinds of measures concerning crime prevention beyond the criminal law. As Liszt advocated the spread of the broad concept of criminal policy and was accepted, criminal policy emerged gradually away from the criminal law, gradually freed from the shackles of criminal law, which objectively promoted the independence of criminal policy. Criminal law forms a discipline.

(3) Alienation of criminal law dogmatism and criminal policy: Liszt's division was formed in Liszt, and criminal law as a normative science was a kind of dogmatics. It followed the logic laws, and with the criminal and criminal law C26 see Liszt, see Former note [3], pp. 8. C27 Lister, see supra note [3], pp. 15. [8] Otani Shimi, see supra note [20], pp. 9-10. [9] See Xu Fusheng: Criminal "Policy", China Democracy and Legal Publishing House 2006, page 3. Set as its border. As an empirical science, criminal policy is a kind of factual science. It carries out scientific principles and aims at punishing crimes and preventing crimes. Obviously, in the eyes of Liszt, there is a border between the teaching of criminal law and criminal policy, and they must not interfere with each other. As mentioned earlier, in Liszt, criminal law doctrine refers to crime theory, and criminal policy refers to penalty theory. Therefore, the separation of criminal law dogma and criminal policy can also be said to be a dualistic division between the criminal theory system based on the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime and the penalty theory guided by purpose. This article also uses the concept of criminal law doctrine and criminal policy in the above sense. This is a continuation of Liszt's kind of discourse. Liszt’s handling of the relationship between criminal law teaching and criminal policy has been largely influenced by Hume’s concept of a distinction between real and supposed, fact and value, and he believes that criminal law dogmatism discusses the reality of criminal law. However, the issue of the issue and the fact that the criminal policy is discussing the problem of the criminal law should be a question of value. Therefore, criminal law doctrine is value-neutral and criminal policy is value-related. The doctrine of criminal law is centered on the judiciary, and the statutory principle of crime and punishment is its highest standard. The value of criminal law should be entered into the criminal law through legislation. Therefore, criminal policy is based on legislation. As a result, Liszt separated criminal law doctrine from criminal policy, making them independent and functioning respectively.

Roxin called Liszt's relationship with criminal law's doctrine and criminal policy as Liszt's gap, which of course has its basis and, to a certain extent, also correctly reflects Liszt's definition of the relationship between criminal law teaching and criminal policy. However, even in Liszt, criminal law doctrine and criminal policy are not irrelevant, there is still a significant correlation between the two. For example, when Liszt discussed the impact of criminal policy on the application of criminal law, he pointed out: “Criminal policy gives us an evaluation of the standards of the current law. It explains to us the law that should apply. It also teaches us to understand the current law from its purpose.并按照它的目的具体适用法律。因此，所谓李斯特鸿沟并不意味着对于李斯特来说，刑法教义学与刑事政策毫无关联，而只是说这种关联仅仅是一种外在的关系。

二、罗克辛贯通发现李斯特鸿沟并不是罗克辛的目的，其目的在于消除这一鸿沟，这就是要贯通刑法教义学与刑事政策的关隘。如前所述，李斯特鸿沟是指将刑法教义学与刑事政策界定为种外在的关系，而罗克辛的贯通也主要是将刑法教义学与刑事政策的这种外在关系转变为内在关系。

德国学者许乃曼教授在评论罗克辛的目的理性的犯罪论体系时指出：“此种刑法体系思维的再规范化在近20年来促成了许多或是较基础的或是较细节的研究，它们尝试超越刑法体系与刑事政策互为对立之构想（我称其为鸿沟构想”Grabenkonzept“），并以一个两概念之间贯通的推导与关系结构之想法来取代，换言之即发展一种架桥构想（Brckenkonzept）。”这里的鸿沟构想与架桥构想，十分形象地描述了李斯特与罗克辛在刑法教义学与刑事政策关系问题上的不同立场。

那么，从李斯特的鸿沟到罗克辛的贯通，罗克辛做到了吗，又是怎么做到的呢，〔0〕李斯特，见前注〔3〕，页4.（德）许曼：刑法体系与刑事政策“载许玉秀等编，见前注〔16〕，页47.（一）李斯特鸿沟的批判性解构罗克辛教授对李斯特鸿沟进行了批判，因为根据李斯特的思想，刑法与刑事政策是两个完全不同的学术领域，应当予以相对隔离。李斯特鸿沟就是这种刑法教义学与刑事政策二元结构的产物。考虑到在李斯特时代，刑事政策尚未获得独立地位，如果刑法教义学与刑事政策纠缠不清，并不利于刑事政策的发展。因此，对刑事政策与刑法教义学进行适度的区隔是具有定合理性的。当然，这种刑法教义学与刑事政策的分立也带来以下三个方面的问题：刑法教义学的体系性与刑事政策的个案性难以兼顾刑法教义学具有体系性的特征，正是这种体系化的知识所形成的具有封闭性的结构，对于法官的偶然与专断具有限制性与约束性。因此，刑法教义学的体系性自有其优越性。对此，罗克辛也是充分肯定的，他甚至提出了”体系是一个法治国不可缺少的因素“的命题。〔2〕罗克辛曾经引述西班牙学者金贝尔纳特奥代格的话说明体系性思考的优点：在刑法信条学设定了界限和规定了概念的情况下，它就可能使刑法在安全和可预见的方式下得到运用，并能够避免非理性化、专横性和随意性（Improvisation）。因此，体系性的刑法教义学知识对于实现罪刑法定主义来说是必不可少的保障。但是，体系性的知识体系存在着缺陷，甚至是危险。关于这种危险，德国学者称为非常抽象的程式化的刑法解释学（Strafrechtsdogmatik）的危险，指出：该危险存在于法官机械地信赖理论上的概念，从而忽视具体案件的特殊性。因此，这里的危险是指个案公正的难以周全兼顾。因为在刑法教义学的体系内，更强调的是对于各种行为与行为人的平等对待。在这种情况下，行为的特殊情境与行为人的特殊个性无法在法律评价中得到体现。因此，在将刑法教义学与刑事政策完全分离的状态之下，刑法教义学无法顾及个案情况；而刑事政策则不能进入刑法体系。

刑法教义学的教条性与刑事政策的灵活性不能两全刑法教义学是以刑法条文为中心建立起来的知识体系，具有先天的教条性。这种教条性不可避免地使其教义规则具有某种僵硬性。而刑事政策是为抗制犯罪所设计的各种措施，具有对策性，是更为灵活的应对举措。两者之间存在种紧张关系。在刑法教义学与刑事政策分立的情况下，教义规则的教条性与刑事政策的灵活性各自存在。只有当刑事政策进入刑法体系，才能以刑事政策的灵活性对教义规则的教条性起到一种补救的作用。罗克辛指出：“针对'李斯特鸿沟'LisztscheTrennung）所延伸出来的刑法教义学方法，还会导致另一个问题，即：若刑事政策的课题不能够或不允许进入教义学的方法中，那么从体系中得出的正确结论虽然是明确和稳定的，但是却无法保证合乎事实的结果。”35之所以如此，主要是由刑法教义的僵硬性决定的，因而罗克辛提出了“我们必须从刑事政策上主动放弃那些过于僵硬的规则”这命题。

〔2〕罗克辛，见前注〔17〕，页132.〔3〕罗克辛，见前注〔7〕，页126.〔4〕耶赛克等，见前注〔5〕，页242.〔5〕罗克辛，见前注〔2〕，页7.刑法教义学的逻辑性与刑事政策的价值性无法并存刑法教义学作为个知识体系，具有自身的逻辑结构，例如三阶层的犯罪论体系就是如此。罗克辛指出：“自实证主义的开端以后，阶层体系就如一个概念金字塔（Begriffspyra-mide），有着林奈直到内涵广泛的上位概念――行为，人们从大量的犯罪特征中归纳出了这种构造。这样个阶层式的刑法教义学体系当然具有其优越性，就是以其严密的逻辑演绎推理在相当程度上保障了刑法教义的正确性。但是，刑法并不仅仅是逻辑现象，更是社会现象。对社会问题需要进行价值判断，而这正是刑事政策的功能之所在。在李斯特鸿沟中，刑法教义学与刑事政策之间互相隔绝，导致刑法体系中价值判断的缺失。

（二）刑事政策进入刑法教义学体系在李斯特一贝林的古典派的犯罪论体系之后，又先后出现过新古典派的犯罪论体系、目的行为论的犯罪论体系。罗克辛认为，以上体系都未能妥善地解决刑法教义学与刑事政策的关系问题。

新古典派犯罪论体系在刑法体系中引入所谓新康德哲学，而这哲学又称为价值哲学。

对于新古典派犯罪论体系将刑事政策应用到刑法教义学中，罗克辛是充满期待的，他同时指出了新古典派犯罪论体系对三阶层的学术贡献：在构成要件阶层按照被保护法益进行解释、在违法性阶层发展出超法规紧急避险等正当化事由和在罪责阶层提出了期待可能性思想等。但罗克辛批判新古典派犯罪论体系虽然试图将刑事政策上的目标设定引入刑法教义学，但只是对体系从个体一价值上进行瓦解，而没有揭示作为超法规紧急避险或罪责阻却事由的期待不可能背后的目的理论并加以普遍认可的论证。

对于目的行为论犯罪论体系，罗克辛肯定了其试图重新建立刑法教义学与现实之间的联系的努力，指出：通过考察本体论的构造和社会现实，目的行为论试图重新建立刑法教义学与现实之间的联系，从根本上看，这种努力也并非毫无结果。“但罗克辛又认为：我们前面提到的体系推导和直接价值评判之间的紧张关系，在目的主义那里，也还是没有得到消除。”38〕在此，罗克辛所说的体系推导与价值评判之间的紧张关系，也就是刑法教义学的逻辑一概念建构和推导与刑事政策的价值一利益判断和衡量之间的对立关系。

罗克辛将自己创立的犯罪论体系，当然其更喜欢称之为刑法体系，标识为目的理性的犯罪的目的，是有所不同的：前者的目的是行为目的，目的的主体是行为人，因此这是种存在论意义上的目的。而后者的目的是规范目的，目的的主体是刑法，因此这是一种规范论意义上的目的。例如，我国学者在比较上述两种体系时指出：在今日之规范论体系论者看来，由于目的行为论者的观点没有将行为本体的目的性与法规范的目的性区分开来，或者是偏重行为的目的C36罗克辛，见前注〔2〕，页16. C37参见罗克辛，见前注〔2〕，页19.〔8〕罗克辛，见前注〔2〕，页19.而没有足够地强调刑法（罚）的目的对犯罪论体系的指引而并非真正的规范论体系。“39〕这里的规范论体系，就是指罗克辛的目的理性体系。因此，尽管罗克辛也强调目的，但此目的非彼目的。

目的理性的犯罪论体系的根本标志就是刑事政策进入刑法体系，罗克辛指出：“实现刑事政策和刑法之间的体系性统，在我看来，是犯罪论的任务，也同样是我们今天的法律体系的任务。”那么，在目的理性的犯罪论体系中，刑事政策是如何进入刑法教义学的呢，事实上，罗克辛仍然保持了古典派犯罪论体系的三阶层构造，只是对三阶层的内容都进行了刑事政策的改造。罗克辛提出了以刑事政策作为各种犯罪类型的基础的命题，指出：罪刑法定原则的前提、利益对立场合时社会进行调节的利益衡量和对于刑法之目的的探求，就是我们所常见的各个犯罪类型的刑事政策之基础。“41也就是说，犯罪论体系的三阶层分别应该以罪刑法定原则、利益衡量原则和刑法目的原则作为其刑事政策的基础。

构成要件的实质化在三阶层的犯罪论体系中，古典派犯罪论体系最受人垢病的就是形式化的构成要件。根据古典派学者的观点，构成要件的记述性、中立性都是排斥了价值判断的，而这又被认为是罪刑法定主义的基本要求。罗克辛则认为构成要件具有体系性、刑事政策性和信条性这三个功能。罗克辛在论述构成要件的刑事政策性功能时指出：这方面的意义存在于《德国刑法典》第103条第2款要求的“保障功能”之中。刑法只有在行为构成中准确地规定了所禁止的举止行为时，才能对“法无明文规定不为罪”这个基本原理作出完整的正确的说明。如果人们说，我们的刑法是行为构成的刑法而不是态度的刑法，或者说它主要是行为刑法而不是行为人刑法，那么，在使用这些进行表述的背后，总是有着行为构成的刑事政策意义的基础。〔2〕罗克辛将刑事政策意义上的构成要件称为保障性的构成要件，并认为罪刑法定原则是构成要件的刑事政策基础。那么，如何理解罗克辛将罪刑法定原则作为构成要件的刑事政策基础这一命题呢，我认为，这里涉及罗克辛和李斯特所确立的刑法与刑事政策的关系究竟存在何种区分的问题。在我看来，可以作出这样的区别：李斯特是将罪刑法定原则置于构成要件之外，作为抵御刑事政策侵入的边界。归根结底，李斯特还是把罪刑法定原则与刑事政策对立起来。因此，李斯特在罪刑法定原则的理解上更注重通过其形式性特征限制司法权的滥用。而罗克辛则将罪刑法定原则与刑事政策统一起来，认为罪刑法定原则所具有的保障功能本身就是刑事政策所要求的。因此，在刑事政策机能之视角下，罪刑法定原则不仅具有将法无明文规定的行为排除在构成要件之外的功能，而且应该根据罪刑法定原则所具有的保障功能对构成〔9〕方泉：《犯罪论体系的演变――自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读》，中国人民公安大学出版社2008年版，页65.要件进行实体审查，将那些没有处罚必要性的行为排除在构成要件之外。罗克辛指出：从罪刑法定原则的角度来看，其相反的做法反而是正确的：也就是说，落实刑法之“大宪章”机能和刑法之“不完整性”（fragmentarischeNatur）的限制性解释，基于保护法益的思想，只能抽象地限制在不可放弃的可罚性领域。为了达到这个目的，就需要一些调节性（regulate）的规则，比如韦尔策尔所引入的社会相当性，这个社会相当性并不是构成要件要素，而更似乎是在针对包含了社会容忍的举止方式的各种字词含义进行限制时，为了解释的方便而得出的东西。进一步地，还有所谓的“轻微性原则”（Geringfgigkeitsprinzip），亦即在大多数构成要件中，是可以一开始就排除那些轻微的损害的，而被排除的这些轻微损害也属于社会容忍的内容。

这样，罪刑法定原则就具有了实质性的积极功能，这就是罗克辛所说的罪刑法定原则所具有的指导人们举止的目标。在这个意义上，罗克辛认为，罪刑法定原则就成为变革社会的工具，而且是具有重要意义的工具。显然，这与李斯特对罪刑法定原则之功能的消极理解是完全不同的，罗克辛主要是强调了罪刑法定原则的实质侧面，并且为构成要件的实质化提供了正当性的根据。根据以上考察，我们可以看到罗克辛在一定程度上恢复了费尔巴哈的罪刑法定思想。因为费尔巴哈主要是从一般预防角度论证罪刑法定原则的正当性，刑法的合理性不仅来自于惩罚的必要性，而且来自于预防的必要性。这里的预防，就是指费尔巴哈所主张的心理强制。费尔巴哈指出：“刑法的必要性的根据以及刑罚存在的根据（既包括法律中规定的刑罚，也包括刑罚的运用本身），是维护所有人彼此之间的自由的必要，其途径是消除人们内心的违法动机。”45〕因此，在费尔巴哈那里，罪刑法定本身就具有一般预防的功能。及至李斯特开始注重特殊预防，罪刑法定的般预防功能被忽视，而其人权保障功能备受重视。罗克辛则在注重罪刑法定的人权保障功能的同时，也强调罪刑法定的一般预防功能。由此，刑法目的与罪刑法定获得了一致性，并在构成要件阶层得以体现。

在构成要件的实质化中，罗克辛的正犯理论，尤其是义务犯理论，具有不容忽视的重大意义。正犯虽然与共犯相对应，但它更涉及对构成要件行为的理解。在实证主义的观念指导下，古典派犯罪论体系所主张的物理性的行为概念使得对不作为的解释显得捉襟见肘，更不用说对忘却犯，简直就是无能为力。目的行为论的犯罪论体系虽然添加了行为的目的性这要素，使得行为概念的内容更为丰富。但对于过失犯的行为性，目的行为论的犯罪论体系仍然束手无策。罗克辛在刑事政策观念的指引下，将构成要件行为与法益损害之间的关系分为支配关系与义务关系，由此引申出支配犯与义务犯这一对范畴。支配犯的本质是对犯罪行为的因果流程的支配，这种支配既可以是行为支配（Handlungsherrschaft），即以直接实施构成要件行为的方式构成的直接正犯；也可以是意志支配（Willensherrschaft），即行为人虽未亲自实施构成要件行为，但利用自己的意志力量支配了犯罪的因果流程；还可以是机能支配，即行为人通过〔3〕罗克辛，见前注〔2〕，页30和其他犯罪人的分工合作，机能性地支配了犯罪，因而拥有机能的犯罪支配（funktionelleTatherrschaf）。〔《应该说，罗克辛的支配犯尚可在传统的行为论中加以理解。那么，义务犯则具有强烈的价值论色彩，在很大程度上超越了传统的行为论。罗克辛指出：还存在着这样的犯罪，在这些犯罪中处于实现行为构成的中心位置的人，是那些违反特定的不是每个人都要履行的义务的人。我称之为'义务犯罪义务犯的行为不像支配犯那样，是通过实在的外在举止的方式所能够把握的；而是通过违反构成要件特别规定的特定义务而加以描述的。在效（Funktionsfahigkeit），而这些生活领域是人们在法律上精心构建过（durchgeformt）的。“〔48〕随着义务犯理论的建构，构成要件的行为极大地超越了存在论的疆域，越来越具有规范论的性质，这也被认为是罗克辛目的理性的犯罪论体系的特色之。

在构成要件的实质化中，罗克辛所做的最为重要的贡献还在于提出了客观归责理论。客观归责是在形式地具备构成要件之后，再进步对符合构成要件的行为进行实质审查。客观归责的基本原理是：“法秩序必须禁止人们创造对于受刑法保护的法益而言不被容许的风险，而且，如果行为人在某个侵害法益的结果中实现了这种风险，那么实现这种风险就要作为一种符合构成要件的行为归属到该行为人身上。”〔4W客观归责理论所要解决的是：在什么样的前提条件下将结果归责于行为人所实施的行为，这个问题，在古典派的犯罪论体系中，是通过因果关系理论来解决的，将其视为一个事实上的归因问题。此后，目的行为论的犯罪论体系强调了意志的归责（dievoluntativeZurechnung），而罗克辛则在规范的归责（dienormativeZurech-nung）的基础上，形成了客观归责理论，完成了从存在论的归因到规范论的归责的转变。〔0〕随着客观归责理论的创立，构成要件的实质判断得以强化。在这种情况下，构成要件从存在论走向价值论或者规范论。刑事政策所具有的目的性的观念在构成要件中得以贯彻，而客观归责只不过是其中的一个篇章。

在三阶层的犯罪论体系中，违法性主要是对符合构成要件的行为进行实质审查。但在李斯特的古典派的犯罪论体系中，违法性虽然可以分为形式违法性与实质违法性，构成要件是形式违法性的凭证，主要依靠构成要件的推定。而实质违法性也在很大程度上取决于正当化事由的判断：凡是存在正当化事由的，则否定实质违法性的存在；只有在否定正当化事由的情况下，才肯定实质违法性的存在。因此，违法性的有无取决于正当化事由是否存在，无须单独进行判断。而且，否定实质违法性的存在，也不能否定形式违法性，这是基于三阶层递进式逻辑的必然结论。因此，根据李斯特的古典派的犯罪论体系，违法性的功能极为有限，只是根据法〔6〕参见何庆仁：《义务犯研究》，中国人民大学出版社2010年版，页11.〔8〕罗克辛，见前注〔2〕，页23-24.〔9〕罗克辛，见前注〔2〕，页72.〔0〕关于德国客观归责理论的形成，参见吴玉梅：《德国刑法中的客观归责研究》，中国人民公安大学出版社2007年版。

律规定认定正当化事由。只是在新古典派犯罪论体系中，才真正引入实质违法性的判断，使违法性阶层发挥实质审查功能。对此，德国学者许乃曼在论及新古典派犯罪论体系对违法性阶层的贡献时指出：在贝林一李斯特的体系里，违法性原来是一个纯粹形式的、完全由立法者以权威命令充实内涵的范畴。在此透过实质的违法性理论即发生了一个大转变：无论如何，在实质的违法性被定义为“侵害社会的行为”，并且对于阻却违法发展出“目的手段相当原则”或“利多于害原则”等调节公式之后，人们才可能开始对无数被立法者所忽视或未予解决的违法性的问题，籍由体系处理寻求解决的方法。〔1〕罗克辛则进一步将违法性要件所要承担的作用，从构成要件中排除不具有实质违法性的行为的消极功能转化为解决社会冲突的积极功能。罗克辛指出：在违法性层面，人们探讨的是相对抗的个体利益或社会整体利益与个体需求之间产生冲突时，应该如何进行社会纠纷的处理。也就是在一般人格权（allgemeinesPersCnlichkeitsrecht）与公民行为自由之间有矛盾时，是否有必要进行公权力的干预，以求得矛盾的消除，以及在现实的、难以预见的紧急状态的情况下，是否要求作出进行干预的决定：在这里，人们经久不衰地讨论的是，社会如何才能对利益以及与之相对立的利益实现正确的管理。

在此，罗克辛提出了一个与违法性的本质相关的重要概念，这就是干预权。这里的干预权是指法律，确切地说，是刑法对于个人行为的干预权。如果干预，则意味着某种行为应当作为犯罪处理；如果不予干预，则该行为可以不作为犯罪处理。而是否干预，就直接决定了犯罪的范围与特征。例如，对于安乐死是否构成故意杀人罪的问题，就涉及到法律是否赋予公民个人以尊严死的权利这一较为敏感的问题。在正当化事由中，除了刑法明文规定的正当防卫、紧急避险等法定事由以外，还存在着大量的超法规的正当化事由。对于这些超法规的正当化事由的认定，就涉及在相对立的利益之间如何权衡与取舍的选择。根据罗克辛的观点，这里关系到整体法秩序，也是刑法中最为活跃的内容。通过正当化事由的范围调节，刑法能够及时与灵活地反映社会现实。这对于刑法来说，可以在对社会作出有效反应的同时，又能够保持刑法的稳定性。正如罗克辛指出：由于干预权是源自整个法的领域的，而且正如超法规紧急避险的例子所表现的那样，其是可以从实在法的般原则推导出来的，也并不需要用刑法法条来固定化，因此，不受罪刑法定原则影响的其他法领域的发展变化可以在正当化事由方面直接影响到案件是否可罚，而并不需要刑法作出同步修改。

在这种情况下，违法性就成为一种否定性的价值判断，它以干预权为依归，由此而充分发挥了违法性的出罪功能。

〔1〕（德）许曼：刑法体系思想导论“载许玉秀等编，见前注〔16〕，页271〔3〕罗克辛，见前注〔〕，页39如前所述，李斯特的古典派犯罪论体系在罪责上所持的是心理性的罪责概念，此后新古典派犯罪论体系发展出了规范性的罪责概念，在罪责概念中引入了价值评价。目的行为论的犯罪论体系则进一步对规范性罪责概念进行了修正，将故意、过失这些单纯的心理性内容从罪责概念中抽掉，将之归入构成要件，在罪责概念中保留下来的仅仅是可谴责的标准。可以说，从心理性的罪责概念到规范性的罪责概念，罪责要件已经在很大程度上完成了从存在论的罪责观到价值论的罪责观的转变。但罗克辛认为，上述规范性罪责概念仍然是一种形式性的罪责概念，指出：规范性罪责概念仅仅是说，一种有罪责的举止行为必须是'可谴责的'但是，这个概念仅仅具有形式上的性质，而还没有回答这个问题：这种可谴责性应当取决于哪些内容上的条件。这是一个关于实质性罪责概念的问题。”5在此，罗克辛提出了实质性罪责概念的命题。那么，实质性罪责概念到底包含哪些要素呢，罗克辛认为，罪责主要是回答“构成要件该当、违法的行为具备什么条件才配得上动用刑罚”的问题。罗克辛指出：刑罚同时取决于两个因素，其一是，用刑罚进行预防的必要性；其二是，犯罪人罪责及其大小。如果人们赞同我的观点，那么，也就意味着，刑罚受到了双重的限制。刑罚之严厉性不得超过罪责的严重性，同时，也不能在没有预防之必要性的情况下科处刑罚。这也就是说，如果有利于对犯罪人实行再社会化的话，那么，是可以科处比罪责之严重程度更为轻缓的刑罚的；如果没有预防必要的话，甚至可以完全不科处刑罚。〔5〕因此，在实质性的罪责中，包含了两个要素，这就是规范性要素与预防必要性；并且，在这两者之间存在着逻辑上的位阶关系：规范性要素在前，预防必要性在后；后者以前者为前提。

罗克辛还提出了答责性（Verantwortlichleit）作为上述两个概念的上位概念。规范性要素解决的是非难可能性（Vorwerfbarkeit）的问题，只是答责性的必要条件，只有加上预防必要性，才能为答责性提供充分条件。5对于罗克辛实质性罪责概念中的规范性要素，不必着墨过多，因为并无特别之处。这里重点需要讨论的是预防必要性。罗克辛的预防必要性是从刑罚目的中引申出来的，这里的刑罚目的就是预防犯罪。罗克辛是报应主义的坚定反对者，因为报应主义使刑罚完全脱离了社会，没有考虑刑罚处罚的社会必要性。而基于刑事政策之机能的视角，在刑罚目的上只能选择预防主义。罗克辛指出：“由于刑法是一种社会治理（sozialeSteuerung）和社会控制的机制，它也就只能谋求社会目标。”573这里的刑法的社会目标就是指预防犯罪，这也是刑事政策的目标。

预防犯罪有一般预防与特殊预防之分。在以往德国学者中，费尔巴哈主张一般预防，李斯特则转向特殊预防。但是，无论是费尔巴哈还是李斯特都没有将犯罪预防的观念引入罪责之罗克辛，见前注〔17〕，页562.〔6〕参见李文健：《罪责概念之研究――非难的实质基础》，合湾三容股份有限公司1998年版，页222以下。

in.在将预防观念引入罪责概念的理论中，其中有两种理论：第一种是作为必须为自身个性负责的罪责，这一罪责概念具有明显的人格责任论的性质，将罪责标记成“为这种人格必须承担责任（Einstehenmssen）”，因此，特殊预防成为刑罚必要性的考量因素。第二种是作为根据一般预防需要归咎的罪责，这是德国学者雅科布斯所主张的，这种理论将罪责理解为种般预防性的归咎（Zuschreibung），一般预防成为刑罚必要性的考量因素。对于这两种关于刑罚必要性的罪责理论，罗克辛都是反对的。罗克辛在刑罚目的问题上是一个双重预防论者，指出：刑罚还要有特殊预防和一般

Sweeping Robot

Sweeping Robot,Robot Vacuum Cleaner,Best Robot Vacuum,Roomba Vacuum Cleaner

ChangChun E-vida Technology Co.,ltd , https://www.evidatec.com