会员注册 | 登录 | 微信快捷登录 QQ登录 微博登录 | 帮助中心 人人文库renrendoc.com美如初恋!
站内搜索 百度文库

热门搜索: 直缝焊接机 矿井提升机 循环球式转向器图纸 机器人手爪发展史 管道机器人dwg 动平衡试验台设计

   首页 人人文库网 > 资源分类 > DOC文档下载

法学外文翻译--意图与疏忽 刑法的基本原则.doc

  • 资源星级:
  • 资源大小:43.50KB   全文页数:6页
  • 资源格式: DOC        下载权限:注册会员/VIP会员
您还没有登陆,请先登录。登陆后即可下载此文档。
  合作网站登录: 微信快捷登录 支付宝快捷登录   QQ登录   微博登录
友情提示
2:本站资源不支持迅雷下载,请使用浏览器直接下载(不支持QQ浏览器)
3:本站资源下载后的文档和图纸-无水印,预览文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰   

法学外文翻译--意图与疏忽 刑法的基本原则.doc

法学外文翻译温州姜BasicConceptsofCriminalLaw,page117120NewYorkOxfordOXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESS1998IntentionversusNegligenceNameGeorgeP.FleteherTEXTTherearesomesituationsinlifeinwhichpeoplesetouttoaccomplishcertaingoalsandtheyrealizetheiraimsexactlyasplanned.Theysetouttogotothelibraryandtheyarriveatthelibrary.Theysetouttogotostealabookandtheystealabook.Obviously,theaimsaresometimesgood,sometimesbad.Butveryoftenpeoplegetwheretheywanttogo.Thesearecaseofintentionalconduct,ofsettingonessightsonrealizingaparticulartarget,whetherthegoalbesociallydesirablegoingtothelibraryorcriminalstealingabook.Inmanysituations,however,weaccomplishbothgoodandbadnotastheobjectofourintentionsbutastheunwittingsideeffectsofourconduct.Imaginethatsomeonedropsawalletfullofcash,astarvingmotherthenfindsitandusesthefundstosavethelivesofherthreechildren.Losingthewalletwasanaccident,andgoodcameofit.Orsupposethatapharmacistmislabelsabottleofpoisonasanutritionalfoodsupplementandthencasuallyleavesapackageofthebottlesinthebackofhisstore.Astreetpersonfindsthebottlesofpoisonandafterreadingthelabels,drinksthepoisonanddies.Mislabelingthebottlewasanaccident,moreorless,butgreatharmcameofit.Thepersonwhodroppedhiswalletmightfeelgoodthathismoneywasappliedtoagoodpurpose,butitwouldbeoddforhimtoclaimcredittoexpectpraiseandappreciationfromothersforsavingthelivesofthethreechildren.Butthepharmacistwhomislabeledthepoisonmightberesponsible,bothmorallyandlegally,forthedeathofthepersonwhoconsumedthepoison.Thisdifferenceshouldpuzzleus.Praiseforgooddeedsseemstopresupposeanintentiontodogood,butblameforharmfuldeedsneednotbeattendedbyanintentiontoharm.Grantingcreditandgivingpraiserequire,itseems,achoosingtodogood,aninvestingofoneselfinphilanthropy.Wrongdoingdiffers.Ifthepharmacistcouldavoidendangeringthepublicbytakingappropriatemeasures,heisrequiredtodoso.Ofcourse,thereismuchworktobedoneinfiguringoutwhattheseappropriatemeasuresare.Butifhepaystoolittleattentiontothemeasuresnecessarytoprotectthepublicfromthepoisonsinhisshop,hiscausingharmwillbelabelednegligent.Andnegligentlycausingharmcanprovideabasisforcriminalliabilityaswellasmoralcensure.SinceRomanlawyerscarvedoutapplicationsforthetermsdolusintentionandculpafault,negligence,lawyersintheWesternlegaltraditionhaverelieduponthispairofwordstoassaybothcriminalandcivilresponsibility.Receivingpraisefordoinggoodrequiresagoodintention.Butitseemsthatwecanbeblamedfortheharmwebringabouteitherbyintentionornegligence.AlllegalculturesintheWestrecognizethedistinctionbetweenintentionalandnegligentwrongdoing,butthereisgreatdisagreementaboutthecontoursandtheimplicationsofthesewaysofbeingheldresponsible.NegligenceObjectiveandSubjectiveWhyisnegligencesotroublingasagroundofliabilityTherearesome,assuggestedabove,whodonotregardnegligencetobeaformofmensreaorapropergroundforblamingeithercausingharmofmakingmistakes.Thereareotherswhoinsistthatnegligenceisanobjectivestandardandthat,therefore,negligenceinvariablyentailsadepersonalizedandunjustjudgmentofresponsibilityandblame.Thenegligentarenotjudgedonthebasisofwhattheyhaveactuallydonebutontheextentoftheirdeviationfromthemythicalstandardofthereasonableperson.Thiscritiqueofnegligencehasbecomeacute.Inrecentyearsasmanyfeministscholarshavearguedthatthestandardofthereasonablepersonhasamalebiasbuiltintoitandthat,therefore,theproperstandardforjudgingfemalesuspectsshouldbeareasonablewomanstandard.Thetermsobjectiveandsubjectivegetinthewayofclarifyingthisdisputeandtryingtoresolveit.Theproblemisthatthetermsmeandifferentthingstodifferentpeople.Sometimessubjectiveistakentomeanasthesuspectpersonallybelieves.Forexample,inafamousnineteenthcenturycase,Commonwealthv.Pierce,thealternativetoanexternalorobjectivestandardofnegligencewasthoughttobeoneinwhichthedefendantsgoodfaithwascontrolling.InPierce,thedefendant,practicingpubliclyasaphysician,causedthedeathofapatientbyapplyingkerosenesoakedflannelstoherskin.Concludingthatthestandardofliabilitywasexternal,JusticeOliverWendellHolmes,Jr.wrotethatthequestionwaswhetherthetreatmentwouldhavebeenrecklessinamanofreasonableprudence.Thepointofsayingthatthestandardwasexternalwastostressthatgoodfaithwasnotadefenseandthatthedefendantmightbeguilty,eventhoughhethoughthewasdoingtheprudentthing.Inonesense,then,theconflictbetweenobjectiveandinternalstandardsofgoodfaith.InamodernreplayoftheprobleminPierce,BernhardGoetzargued,afterhehadshotfouryoungmenwhosurroundedhiminthesubway,thattheNewYorkstatutorystandardofreasonablyperceivingathreatofrobberyshouldbejudgedbythesubjectivestandardofgoodfaith.Remarkably,theappellatecourtsandevenalawprofessoragreedwithhim.WhenthecasefinallyreachedtheNewYorkCourtofAppealsthehighestcourtinthestate,thejudgesunanimouslyandthatthestatuteimpliedthestandardofthereasonablepersonandthatthereforeGoetzsperceptionbothofdangerandofthenecessityofshootingshouldbejudgedaccordingtoanexternalcommunitystandardofreasonablebehavior.ThebeautyoftheMPCprovisiononnegligenceisthatitdistinguishesclearlybetweentheexternalorobjectivestandardofanunreasonableriskandtheactorspecificissueofpersonalresponsibilityrunningtherisk.Inthisrespect,thestructureoftheMPCprovisiontracesthedistinctionwedevelopedinchapter5betweenwrongdoingandpersonalresponsibility.Thewrongdoingofnegligenceconsistsinrunningthesubstantialandunjustifiableriskofcausingharm.Responsibilityforrunningtheriskisresolvedbytheinquiryintowhatareasonablepersonwoulddounderthecircumstances.Withthisstructuraldistinction,however,wehavenotresolvedthequestionwhethertheactorspecificissueofresponsibilityshouldbeunderstoodobjectivelyorsubjectively.Andonceagain,theterminologyitselfbreedsconfusion.Oneargumentisthattheveryinvocationofthereasonablepersonentailssomeobjectificationanabstractanddepersonalizedstandardthatisperseunjust.Theimplicationofthiscritiqueisthatthejuststandardisonethatissubjective.Thefactisthateverystandardforresponsibilityisexternalorobjectiveacommunitystandardofresponsiblebehavior.Theonlycoherentbasisforblamingsomeoneforengaginginharmfulactione.g.,takingasubstantialandunjustifiableriskofharmistocomparethesuspectsdecisiontoactwithastandardofproperbehavior.Evenwheretheactorchoosestoengageintherisk,thechoiceprovidesanadequategroundforcriminalresponsibilityonlyifthechoicedeviatesfromtheexpectedbehaviorofareasonableperson.AccordingtotheMPCsdefinitionofrecklessness,anactoriscriminallyresponsibleforchoosingtodisregardasubstantialandunjustifiablerisk,onlyifthedisregardoftheriskinvolvesagrossdeviationfromtheactorssituation.ThetermlawabidingpersontakestheplaceofthereasonablepersonbuttheprincipleremainsconstantTheonlywaytojudgeresponsibilityforrecklessandnegligentrisktakingistomeasuretheactorsconductagainstcommunityexpectations.Thechoicetodisregardtheriskisnotperseculpableitisculpableonlyifitfallsshortofthecommunitystandardofreasonablelawabidingbehavior.Sincethecriterionofchoicedoesnoteliminatetheproblemofjudgingconductagainstacommunitystandard,thenaggingquestionremainsHowdowedistinguishbetweenajustandanunjuststandardofnegligenceIsitclearlybetter,morejust,toindividualizethestandardofresponsibilitytoincludeallthefactorsthatbearontheactorsdecisiontoruntheriskIndeed,shouldweindividualizethestandardofjudgmenttothepointthatweconsidertheinfinitevarietiesoftemperament,intellectandeducationthatleaddifferentpeopletoactdifferently.InassessingwhethersomeonelikeBernhardGoetzreasonablyperceivedariskofdangerandreasonablyperceivedariskofdangerandreasonablyreactedtohisperception,hispriorexperiencewithcrimeinhtsubwaybecomesrelevantifmuggedinthepast,hewouldunderstandablyandreasonablyperceivetheearlystagesofapossiblemuggingasthreatening.Ifasmallwomanisattackedbyalargeman,thesedifferencesingenderandsizebecomerelevantinassessingwhetherherresponsetotheperceivedattackisreasonableunderthecircumstances.Myclaimhereisnotthatthestandardshouldbesubjectivedependentontheactorsgoodfaithbutratherindividualizedinordertoachieveafairstandardofjudgingindividualbehavior.Manytheoristsdespairofthepossibilityofajuststandardofnegligencebecausetheythinkthatitisimpossibletoindividualizethestandardofjudgment.Ifthereasonablepersonisadjustedtotheinfinitevarietyofindividualdifferences,thestandardforjudgingwouldcollapseintotheobjecttobejudged.WewouldbeforcedtoembracethesloganofinfiniteunderstandingToutcomprendre,cesttoutpardoner.Ifweknoweverythingaboutthedefendant,wemustexcusehim.Therefore,ifwemakethestandardofjudgmenttooparticular,wehavenochoicebuttoexcuseormitigatethecrime.Ifthereasonablepersonweredefinedtobejustlikethedefendantineveryrespect,hewouldindeeddoexactlywhatthedefendantdidunderthecircumstances.Butthisexcessiveindividualizationrestsonamistake.Objectivefactorsbearingonthedecisiontoactmightberelevant,butitwouldnotfollowthatallthefeaturesofthedefendantscharacterwouldenterintotheequation.Ifthedefendantsheadinjuryorimpotenceisconsideredinassessingthelikelybehaviorofareasonableperson,itdoesnotfollowthattheactorssituationincludeshisinsensitivity,greed,zealforadventure,orevenhiswickednessasaperson.Excessiveandmistakenindividualizationderivesfromthefailuretoattendcloselytothetypesofcharactertraitsthatproperlysubjectwrongdoerstojudgmentsofblame.Supposethatoutofazealforthrillsandadventure,amotoristhabituallydrives100mph.IsshesubjecttoblameforthisexcessiverisktakingTheanswerisyes.Theobviousdifferencebetweenaheadinjuryandalustforthrillsliesintheactorspotentialselfcontroltheirlustforadventuresofarasitaffectsthesafetyofotherspreciselyasweexpectthemtocontroltheirgreed,jealousy,andothervicesofcharacter.Thosewhofailtodisciplinetheirviceshardlywarrantpreferentialtreatmentbyhavingtheirvicesincorporatedintothestandardbywhichtheyarejudgedasthoughthegreedymanshouldbejudgedbythegreedymanstandard.Holdingsomeonetoacommunitystandard,therefore,isnotnecessarilyaformofinjustice.Solongasthedefendantisexcusedonthebasisofobjective,conductinfluencingfactors,suchasphysicalimpediments,thestandardofresponsibilityremainsattentivetoindividualcapacity.Thestandardcanbeproperlyindividualized,befairandsensitivetodifferencesthatmatter,andstillprovideaproperstandardofjudgment.译文二刑法的基本原则,第117120页纽约牛津牛津大学1998年版意图与疏忽刑法的基本原则作者乔治P.Fleteher正文有一些情况在生活中,人们对自己规定了去完成一定的目标,他们实现他们的目标是完全按计划进行。他们开始去图书馆,他们到达图书馆。他们准备去窃取了一本书,而且他们窃取了一本书。显然,目标是有时好,有时坏。不过,很多时候人们去他们想去的地方。这些故意行为的案件,设定自己的着眼的实现特定的目标,无论是可取的社会的目标(去图

注意事项

本文(法学外文翻译--意图与疏忽 刑法的基本原则.doc)为本站会员(英文资料库)主动上传,人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。 若此文所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私,请立即通知人人文库网(发送邮件至[email protected]或直接QQ联系客服),我们立即给予删除!

温馨提示:如果因为网速或其他原因下载失败请重新下载,重复下载不扣分。

[email protected] 2015-2017 人人文库网网站版权所有
苏ICP备12009002号-5