作者：王 骏
作者介绍：浙江大学宁波理工学院副教授 ，法学博士
出版日期：2014年10月9日
内容提要 对于被害人自陷风险时行为人是否要对结果负责 ，被害人信条学、与正犯 相关联的事实支配说、被害人承诺理论等教义学模型均不能予以妥适解答。 自我答责原则 只是表达了对于个案归责问题 的结论 ，缺乏实质论证。刑法规范所设定的目的是利益侵害的预防，行为人与被害人的负责范围应从人的行为对于利益侵害结果的意义来考量。被害人自陷风险是为了实现其自主利益，促成该利益实现的行为人不应对结果发生负责。在进行目的性限缩时，目的设定应充分体现利益思考，并恪守解释论与立法论的界限。
关键词 被害人自陷风险 被害人信条学 正犯支配 自我答责 目的性限缩
Abstract:Whether the perpetrators should be responsible for the results that victims fall into the risks by themselves, victims ' dogmatics, facts domination doctrine related to principal offender and victims commitment theory could not properly answer. Principle of selfresponsibility just expresses the conclusions of imputation issues of individual cases, but this principle lacks of substantive arguments. The purpose set by criminal rules is to prevent interest infringement, and responsible scope between perpetrator and victim should be considered on the basis of infringement results caused by human behaviors. The risks caused by victims themselves are to achieve their own interests, so the perpetrator contributing to the interest realization should not be responsible for the results.