作　　者： (周光权）;

机构地区： 清华大学法学院

出　　处： 《法学评论》 2017年第5期1-17,共17页

摘　　要： 刑事司法上对于防卫性质的认定总是习惯于事后"算经济账",错误理解不法侵害,轻易认定互殴,最终大多朝着否定正当防卫的方向做出判决。这种人为压缩正当防卫成立空间的司法异化现象之所以出现,原因极其复杂,但更多地与实务上将利益衡量原理简单化、缺乏规范评价理念有关。根据我国刑法第20条第2款的规定,肯定防卫过当需要分别考察防卫必要性和防卫结果这两个独立条件。防卫必要性是防卫过当的决定性标准,对结果的利益衡量只能是辅助性的;只有在依据事前判断标准认定防卫行为不必要时,才需要进行利益衡量;认定正当防卫,还必须顾及客观归责的法理,坚持一系列司法准则。肯定上述结论,司法实务上才能敢于担当,超越固有思维模式,减少防卫过当的适用可能,改变实务上正当防卫成立过于艰难的局面,从而达到纠正司法偏差的效果,切实鼓励公民依法行使正当防卫权,使正义"不委屈也可以求全",并最终有效维护法治秩序。 The identification of defensive nature on criminal justice is used for final reckoning. With the misunderstanding of illegal violation or roughly affirmation of scuffle, most verdicts come to an end to deny the identification of justifiable defense eventually. The reasons why the identification scope of justifiable defense is restricted inappropriately to such a deviation extent are extremely complex, hut overall it relates to taking benefit--balancing theory for granted and the lack of normative evalua- tion concept on judicial practice. According to paragraph 2 of article 20 of the criminal law of China, the affirmation of justifia- ble defense should consider defense necessity and defense result simultaneously. The defense necessity is the decisive criterion of excessive defense, conversely the benefit--balancing of results is auxiliary at most. Only on the basis of conclusion that defense is unnecessary by prejudgment standard, benefit--balancing can be exerted as a substitute. Meanwhile it is also necessary to consider the tenet of objective imputation and to uphold a series of judicial principles. Affirming the above conclusions, the judi- cial practice shall take on responsibilities, get rid of inherent thinking mode, reduce the possibility of excessive defense. As a result, the difficult situation of justifiable defense can he adjusted, judicial deviation can be rectified, the exercise of justifiable defense rights can be encouraged, righteousness and legal order can be maintained availablv.

关 键 词： 正当防卫 防卫过当 防卫必要性 利益衡量