“不知法不免责”准则的历史考察
Historical Review of the Doctrine of "Ignorance of Law is No Excuse" 劳东燕; 1:清华大学 北京100084 摘要(Abstract)：

刑法中事实错误与法律错误分类的现代意义与罗马法无关。对“不知法不免责”准则的发展历史的考察表明,无论在大陆法的语境中,还是在普通法的语境中,现代的“不知法不免责”准则都建立在知法的推定的基础之上。知法的推定与近代以来国家权威的扩张与治理方式的理性化存在紧密联系。借助知法的推定,“不知法不免责”准则与责任主义在古典的刑法理论体系中得以自洽共存。在知法的推定动摇之后,为维护“不知法不免责”的传统立场,人们提出诸种新的理论根据,但这些根据无法使传统立场正当化。

关键词(KeyWords)： 法律错误;;知法的推定;;事实错误;;责任主义;;治理方式

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 清华大学法学院种子基金的资助。

作者(Author): 劳东燕;

Email:


参考文献(References)： [1][美]哈罗德.J.伯尔曼.法律与革命[M.贺卫方,等译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993.[2][德]格尔德.克莱因海尔,扬.施罗德.九百年来德意志及欧洲法学家[M].许兰,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.[3][意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚[M].黄风,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993.[4][英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一,译.北京:商务印书馆,1996.[5][法]列维.斯特劳斯.忧郁的热带[M].王志明,译.北京:生活.读书.新知三联书店,2001.[6][日]曾根威彦.刑法学基础[M].黎宏,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.[7]冯军.违法性意识[A].赵秉志,主编.刑法新探索[C].北京:群众出版社,1993.[8]劳东燕.刑事视域中的“人”[A].刑事法评论(第8卷)[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.[9]李猛.论抽象社会[J].社会学研究,1999,(1).[10][法]米歇尔.福柯.规训与惩罚[M].刘北成,杨远婴,译.北京:生活.读书.新知三联书店,1998.①A.T.H.Smith,Error and Mistake in Anglo-American Criminal Law,in 14 Anglo-American Law Review(1985).p.20.①Dan M.Kahan,Ignorance of Law is an Excuse—but only for the Virtuous,in 96 Michigan Law Review(1997).p.139-141.②A.T.H.Smith,Error and Mistake in Anglo-American Criminal Law,in 14 Anglo-American Law Review(1985).p.17.③Dan M.Kahan,Ignorance of Law is an Excuse—but only for the Virtuous,in 96 Michigan Law Review(1997).p.134.④Paul Matthews,Ignorance of the law is no excuse?in 174 Legal Studies(1983).p.187.⑤Paul K.Ryu and Helen Silving,Error Juris:A Comparative Study,in 24 The University of Chicago Law Review(1957).p.433.①Oliver Wendell Holmes,The Common Law,Cambridge:Belknap Press,1963.p.41.②Jerome Hall,Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law,in 33 Indiana Law Journal(1957).p.19.③Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil:Grundlagen Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre,Band I,3.Aufl.,C.H.Beck Verlag,1997.p.796.④Paul Matthews,Ignorance of the law is no excuse?in 174 Legal Studies(1983).p.188.⑤A.T.H.Smith,Error and Mistake in Anglo-American Criminal Law,in 14 Anglo-American Law Review(1985).p.20.⑥Dan M.Kahan,Ignorance of Law is an Excuse—but only for the Virtuous,in 96 Michigan Law Review(1997).p.136-137.①Paul K.Ryu and Helen Silving,Error Juris:A Comparative Study,in 24 The University of Chicago Law Review(1957).p.431.②Andrew Ashworth,Is the Criminal Law a Last Cause,in Law Quarterly Review2000,116(APR).p.226.③Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil:Grundlagen Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre,Band I,3.Aufl.,C.H.Beck Verlag,1997.p.811.④Claus Roxin,Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil:Grundlagen Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre,Band I,3.Aufl.,C.H.Beck Verlag,1997.p.810.⑤People v.Marrero,507 N.E.2d 1068(1987).⑥Livingston Hall and Selig J.Seligman,Mistake of Law and Mens Rea,in 8 University of Chicago Law Review(1940).p.646-647.①[法]福柯:“权力是如何行使的”,强世功译,选自《福柯文选》(待出版)。①D.O'Connor,Mistake and Ignorance in Criminal Cases,in 39 The Modern Law Review(1976).p.644.②William Blackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England,vol.4,Philadelphia:J.L.Lippincott Company,1859.p.27.③D.O'Connor,Mistake and Ignorance in Criminal Cases,in 39 The Modern Law Review(1976).p.646-647.④D.O'Connor,Mistake and Ignorance in Criminal Cases,in 39 The Modern Law Review(1976).p.648.⑤Paul K.Ryu and Helen Silving,Error Juris:A Comparative Study,in 24 The University of Chicago Law Review(1957).p.431.⑥Paul K.Ryu and Helen Silving,Error Juris:A Comparative Study,in 24 The University of Chicago Law Review(1957).p.426.①Francis Bowes Sayre,Mens Rea,in 45 Harvard Law Review(1931).p.1004.②Livingston Hall and Selig J.Seligman,Mistake of Law and Mens Rea,in 8 The University of Chicago Law Review(1940).p.643.③Livingston Hall and Selig J.Seligman,Mistake of Law and Mens Rea,in 8 The University of Chicago Law Review(1940).p.644.④Refer to Francis Bowes Sayre,Mens Rea,in 45 Harvard LawReview(1931),pp.994-1005;also see Martin R.Gardner,The MensRea Enigma:Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,1993 Utah Law Review,pp.667-672.⑤Francis Bowes Sayre,Mens Rea,in 45 Harvard Law Review(1931).p.1026.⑥Richard Singer,The Resurgence of Mens Rea:II-Honest but Unreasonable Mistake of Fact in Self Defense,in 28 Boston College LawReview(1987).p.461.①此处所谓的“现代”是在现代性意义上使用的概念。诚如福柯所言,“现代”不应仅从时间的维度去理解,而更多地是指一种态度,一种与当代现实发生关联的模式,一种思考、感觉乃至行为举止的方式,它处处体现出某种归属关系,并将自身表现为一项任务。[法]米歇尔.福柯:“什么是启蒙”,李康译,载《国外社会学》1997年第4期,第4页。②Rollin M.Perkins,Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law,in 88 U.Pa.L.Rev.(1939).p.38.③Paul K.Ryu and Helen Silving,Error Juris:A Comparative Study,in 24 The University of Chicago Law Review(1957).p.426.④Martin R.Gardner,The Mens Rea Enigma:Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,1993 Utah LawReview.p.645.①Paul K.Ryu and Helen Silving,Error Juris:AComparative Study,in 24 The University of Chicago LawReview(1957).p.425-427.②Paul K.Ryu and Helen Silving,Error Juris:AComparative Study,in 24 The University of Chicago LawReview(1957).p.425-427.③Keedy,Ignorance and mistakes in the criminal law,in 22 Harvard Law Review(1908).p.78.④Paul K.Ryu and Helen Silving,Error Juris:AComparative Study,in 24 The University of Chicago LawReview(1957).p.426-427⑤由于St櫣bel最终成为费尔巴哈理论的信徒,而Grolman也在与费尔巴哈的论争中败下阵来,特殊预防的刑罚论在当时并未引起重视,只是到李斯特时代才被发扬光大。参见[格尔德.克莱因海尔、扬.施罗德:《九百年来德意志及欧洲法学家》,许兰译,法律出版社2005年版,第177-178页。②Keedy,Ignorance and mistakes in the criminal law,in 22 Harvard Law Review(1908).p.77.