作者：王志远
作者介绍：中国政法大学刑事司法学院教授
出版日期：2025年12月9日
内容提要 为限制刑罚权滥用，法治先贤强调法的客观化，将存在论意义上的行为责任范型确立为刑事归责的唯一根据。然而实践中存在诸多并不完全符合该范型的归责样态，如多次犯、原因自由行为、客观处罚条件等。归咎的刑事责任论为此提供了系统的“刑事归责例外规律”，实质上是借助刑事古典学派力求排除的规范性考量因素来补足归责合理性，但其仍不能为组织体归责提供充分正当化根据。将以组织体官员规则（RCO原则）为代表的规范归咎刑事责任范型确立为与行为责任范型并行的刑事归责根据，不仅能有效证成对组织体归责的合理性，更能为单位犯罪中直接负责的主管人员刑事归责、负有直接责任型危险驾驶罪、拟制型犯罪的正当性等问题提供更周延的解释。尽管规范归咎刑事责任本身具有规范本质上的合理性，但为确保法的安全性，需从义务配置的合理性、责任赋予形式的法定性、刑罚配置的适当性、可谴责性判断的人性化四个方面对其适用加以限制。
关键词 刑事归责 行为责任 归咎责任 规范归咎 组织体归责
Abstract: To restrict the abuse of penal power, early legal theorists emphasized the objectification of law, establishing the ontological paradigm of behavioral liability as the sole basis for criminal imputation. However, numerous patterns of imputation exist in practice that do not fully conform to this paradigm, such as habitual offenders, actio libera in causa, and objective conditions of punishment. The theory of imputed criminal liability provides a systematic ‘jurisprudence of exceptions to criminal imputation’. Substantively, it supplements the rationality of imputation by utilizing normative considerations that the classical school of criminal law sought to exclude. Nevertheless, it still fails to provide a fully sufficient justification for the imputation of liability to organizations. Establishing the paradigm of normative imputation in criminal liability, represented by the RCO principle, as a basis for criminal imputation parallel to the behavioral liability paradigm, can not only effectively justify the rationality of organizational imputation but also provide a more comprehensive explanation for issues such as the criminal imputation of directly responsible managers in units, the crime of dangerous driving by those directly responsible, and the justification of constructive offenses. Although the normative imputation in criminal liability possesses normative rationality in essence, to ensure legal security, its application must be restricted in four aspects: the rationality of obligation allocation, the statutory nature of liability assignment, the appropriateness of penalty allocation, and the humanization of culpability judgment.