作者：柏浪涛
作者介绍：华东师范大学法学院副教授
出版日期：2018年4月9日
内容提要 我国通说认为,实行犯因对象错误而制造的错误结果一概能够归责于教唆犯,这种结论过于绝对。该问题需从客观归责与主观归责两个维度审查。客观归责的实现不等于主观归责的实现。在主观归责领域,传统错误论的分析路径存在"绕路"之嫌,教唆犯不构成对象错误;"遵守指示"标准难以证立;数量错误说不能合理回应屠杀说。关于故意归责,计划实现理论与风险故意理论均存在不足。故意归责的实现,不仅要求认识到危险的创设,还要求认识到危险的实现。前者属于"知晓",后者属于"设想"。教唆犯虽然对预定目标之外的不特定人创设了伴随危险,但采取了消除危险的措施,导致教唆犯在"知晓"与"设想"层面不符合故意要求,那么错误结果不能归责于教唆犯。
关键词 对象错误 打击错误 教唆犯 实行犯 故意归责
Abstract: Regarding whether the erroneous result caused by the perpetrator due to the object error should be imputed to the instigator or not, generally Chinese academic circle hold a positive view according to the theory of "excessive crime. " However, this argumentation is not very convincing. This question should be investigated from the aspects of both objective and subjective imputations. The implementation of the objective imputation is not equal to that of the subjective imputation. In the field of subjective imputation, the argumentation of the traditional view may take a "detour" in the analyzing process. The instigator can commit to neither object error, nor aberratio ictus, so the standard of "obeying instruction" cannot be proved, and the quantity error theory cannot reasonably correspond to "blutbad argument" Regarding intent imputation, both the theories of the implementation of plan and danger intent have weaknesses. From the point of danger deviation and indirect intent, whether the instigator should implement intent imputation depends on whether the instigator has showed the perpetrator the unique characteristics of the planed target and enabled the perpetrator to distinguish the planned target. If not, it shows that the instigator established a broad dangerous field, so the wrong result should be imputed to the instigator. If so, it indicates that the instigator planned a single dangerous process, so the erroneous result should not be imputed to the instigator.