山东警察学院学报

偶然防卫是刑法理论中一个极具争议性的研究难题。围绕违法性的本质、防卫意识是否必要等问题,学界对这一问题展开了激烈的争论,形成了既遂说、未遂说、无罪说等诸多观点,然而这些观点都存在一定的缺憾:既遂说没有准确理解构成要件结果的内涵;无罪说忽视了行为无价值对于行为定性的意义;在未遂说内部,行为无价值论与结果无价值论也存在各自的弱点。偶然防卫包含众多情形,仅对其进行单一的定性未免有失偏颇。行为无价值论的二元论是当今刑法理论的通说,对行为的定性同时考虑行为无价值和结果无价值,是较为妥当的立场,但目前二元论在偶然防卫问题上的主张却未能完全贯彻二元论的立场,需要对此进行修正。应当基于主观不法,将偶然防卫分为故意型、过失型和无罪过型三种类型,从而囊括偶然防卫的所有情形,再从二元论的立场出发,对三种类型的偶然防卫进行不同的定性。

Accidental defense is a contentious issue in criminal law theory. Debates focus on the nature of illegality, the necessity of defense awareness, and other aspects, leading to various views such as the complete offense theory, the attempted offense theory, and the innocence theory. However, each has limitations: the complete offense theory misunderstands the implications of constitutive elements; the innocence theory overlooks the significance of conduct valuelessness in defining behavior; even within the attempted offense theory, both act-based and result-based valuelessness perspectives have weaknesses. Accidental defense encompasses multiple scenarios, so a singular classification is inadequate. The dualist theory of act-based and result-based valuelessness is widely accepted in criminal law, offering a balanced approach by considering both aspects for action classification. Nevertheless, current dualist views on accidental defense require adjustments. It is proposed to categorize accidental defense into deliberate, negligent, and non-negligent types based on subjective illegality, encompassing all scenarios. Different classifications should be applied to these types from the dualist perspective.