会员注册 | 登录 | 微信快捷登录 支付宝快捷登录 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

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--意图与疏忽 刑法的基本原则.doc -- 5 元

宽屏显示 收藏 分享

资源预览需要最新版本的Flash Player支持。
您尚未安装或版本过低,建议您

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
编号:201311171716037740    大小:43.50KB    格式:DOC    上传时间:2013-11-17
  【编辑】
5
关 键 词:
教育专区 外文翻译 精品文档 法学外文
温馨提示:
1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
2: 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
3.本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 人人文库网仅提供交流平台,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
  人人文库网所有资源均是用户自行上传分享,仅供网友学习交流,未经上传用户书面授权,请勿作他用。
0条评论

还可以输入200字符

暂无评论,赶快抢占沙发吧。

当前资源信息

4.0
 
(2人评价)
浏览:39次
英文资料库上传于2013-11-17

官方联系方式

客服手机:13961746681   
2:不支持迅雷下载,请使用浏览器下载   
3:不支持QQ浏览器下载,请用其他浏览器   
4:下载后的文档和图纸-无水印   
5:文档经过压缩,下载后原文更清晰   

相关资源

相关资源

相关搜索

教育专区   外文翻译   精品文档   法学外文  
关于我们 - 网站声明 - 网站地图 - 友情链接 - 网站客服客服 - 联系我们
copyright@ 2015-2017 人人文库网网站版权所有
苏ICP备12009002号-5