论文部分内容阅读
在司法实践中,司法者误以为行为本身具有危险性的或者造成危害公共安全后果的,就属刑法意义上的危险方法。这种“一刀切”式的思维定性模式曲解了危险方法的本质,忽略了其规范意义上的含义。危险方法的本质属性应定位为具体危险,以框定其范围,在该范围内,通过刑法解释建构“定性与定量二元制”体系,以规范其内涵。其中,定性要求危险方法应与放火、爆炸、决水以及投放危险物质具有同质性,定量要求应与上述四种行为具有危险相当性,即具有足以造成重伤、死亡以及重大财产损失的物理性结果的具体危险。
In judicial practice, the judiciary mistakenly believe that the act itself is dangerous or endangered the consequences of public safety, it is a dangerous method in the criminal law sense. This kind of “one-size-fits-all” mode of thinking qualitatively distorts the essence of the dangerous method and ignores its normative meaning. The essential nature of the dangerous method should be positioned as a specific danger to frame its scope, and within this range, the “duality system of qualitative and quantitative” should be constructed through the interpretation of criminal law so as to regulate its connotation. Among them, the qualitative requirements of the hazardous method should be arson, explosion, water and the release of hazardous substances with homogeneity, quantitative requirements should be dangerous with the above four acts of comparability, that is enough to cause serious injury, death and substantial property damage of the physical The specific danger of the result.