风险社会下消极刑法观的倡导与适用 ——以危险犯为视角的展开外文翻译资料

外文文献原文：

Much contemporary criminal justice scholarship describes the system as a dystopia. That is an old phenomenon come 'round again.'In the 'bad old days,' back when many states operated criminal justice systems that were 'a pious charade,' so far removed from the textbook ideal as to be a parody how the criminal process should work, academics took delight in identifying systemic flaws in state and local criminal processes and in skewering their law enforcement officials for pursuing an atavistic approach to justice.' Later, as the Supreme Court roped in the outliers, commentators analyzed the doctrinal development of substantive criminal law and the course taken by the Supreme Court in its attempts to iron out the remaining procedural wrinkles in federal and state efforts to investigate crimes and dispose of cases?

Today, the academy less often analyzes Supreme Court case law than it pursues systems analysis of the criminal justice process. The problems depicted are not minor blemishes. The system seems beset by core defects that should have been fixed long ago: prosecutors withholding or concealing obviously exculpatory evidence, the governments refusal to fund forensic examinations-DNA tests in particular-that could establish with near certainty whether a given individual committed particular crime, the conviction of innocent defendants represented by appointed defense counsel too swamped with cases and too severely underfunded to properly investigate the charges against their clients, and the sight of prisoners stacked like cordwood in the nations prisons.

One of those flaws is 'overcriminalization.' The crux of that neologism consists of the use of the criminal law to punish conduct that traditionally would not be deemed morally blameworthy.13 Every society has found it necessary to identify some conduct as verboten in order for civil society to exist, and to accompany that list with some form of punishment in order to give those prohibitions teeth. The alternative is bellum omnium contra ones.' Having too many criminal laws, however, creates a different set of problems.

译文：许多当代刑事司法学术研究将该系统描述为一个乌托邦。这是一个古老的现象，'又来了。'在 '糟糕的过去'，早在许多州的刑事司法系统是 '虔诚的戏法'，与教科书上的理想相去甚远，以至于模仿刑事程序应该如何运作，学者们很高兴发现州和地方刑事程序的系统性缺陷，并嘲笑他们的执法官员对司法采取厌恶的态度。' 后来，随着最高法院将离群索居，评论家们分析了实体刑法的理论发展，以及最高法院在试图消除联邦和州在调查犯罪和处理案件方面剩余的程序性问题时所采取的方针？

今天，学术界较少分析最高法院的判例法，而是追求对刑事司法程序的系统分析。所描述的问题并不是小瑕疵。这个系统似乎被一些早就应该解决的核心缺陷所困扰：检察官扣留或隐瞒明显的无罪证据，政府拒绝资助法医检查--特别是DNA测试--这些检查可以非常肯定地确定某个人是否犯下了特定的罪行，由指定的辩护律师代表的无辜被告被定罪，因为案件太多，资金严重不足，无法适当调查对其客户的指控，以及全国监狱中囚犯像木柴一样堆积的景象。

其中一个缺陷是 '过度犯罪化'。13 每个社会都发现有必要将一些行为确定为禁忌，以使公民社会得以存在，并以某种形式的惩罚来配合这一清单，以使这些禁令具有效力。另一种选择是 '全境禁止'（bellum omnium contra ones）。然而，有太多的刑事法律，会产生一系列不同的问题。

原文：As this conference and the papers presented here illustrate, the issue of overcriminalization has moved beyond the critique of economic and regulatory crimes with which it began into mainstream commentary on criminal law. Scholars now routinely link overcriminalization to such significant issues as the increased discretion of federal prosecutors, federalization of criminal law, notice problems in view of the breadth and vagueness of offenses, use of civil standards in evaluating criminal conduct, and debate over the consequentialist justification for criminal laws. Associating these trends with overcriminalization, however, provides a description rather than a definition of the term. The absence of a definition makes it difficult to determine whether and how the propensity of Congress to enact criminal laws contributes to those issues.

On a practical level, without a working definition, we fall victim to the 'I know it when I see it' syndrome. This syndrome allows those who oppose certain legislation to give it the negative label of overcriminalization whenever they do not like a new law. Conversely,advocates of a new criminal law can defend legislation even when it may be unnecessary or ineffective. Without a functional definition of the term, new crimes cannot be evaluated to determine on which side of the divide they fall.

Current efforts to control the unlawful use of copyrighted material through criminal laws illustrate the 'I know it when I seen it' syndrome. Proponents of using criminal law to protect the interests of those who hold copyrights view criminalization as a natural evolution--an inevitable recognition of the economic value of music,films, and other copyrighted material and the harm that infringers can cause. Others view these changes as an inappropriate extension of the reach of criminal law that threatens the publics right to use copyrighted material lawfully. Which view is more accurate? In order to determine whether the new laws 'overcriminalize,' we need to have a clear sense of what the concept means.

译文：正如本次会议和在此提交的论文所表明的，过度犯罪的问题已经超越了它开始时对经济和监管犯罪的批评，进入了刑法的主流评论。学者们现在经常将过度犯罪与诸如联邦检察官的自由裁量权增加、刑法的联邦化、鉴于犯罪行为的广泛性和模糊性而产生的通知问题、在评估犯罪行为时使用民事标准以及关于刑法的后果性理由的辩论等重大问题联系起来。然而，将这些趋势与过度犯罪联系起来，只是提供了一种描述，而不是对该术语的定义。由于缺乏定义，很难确定国会颁布刑法的倾向是否以及如何促成这些问题。

在实践层面上，如果没有一个有效的定义，我们就会成为 '我看到就知道 '综合症的受害者。这种综合症使那些反对某些立法的人在不喜欢某项新法律时就给它贴上过度犯罪的负面标签。相反，新刑法的倡导者可以为立法辩护，即使它可能是不必要的或无效的。如果没有一个实用的定义，就无法对新犯罪进行评估，以确定它们属于哪一方。

目前通过刑法控制非法使用版权材料的努力说明了 '见怪不怪 '的综合症。支持使用刑法来保护拥有版权的人的利益的人认为刑事化是一种自然的演变--对音乐、电影和其他版权材料的经济价值以及侵权者可能造成的伤害的不可避免的认识。其他人则认为这些变化是对刑法范围的不适当扩展，威胁到公众合法使用版权材料的权利。哪种观点更准确？为了确定新的法律是否 '过度定罪'，我们需要对这个概念的含义有一个清晰的认识。

原文：The literature treats overcriminalization (and, at the federal level, the federalization of crime) as a quantitative problem. Legislatures, on this view, have simply enacted too many crimes, and those crimes are far too broad in scope. This Article uses federal criminal law as a basis for challenging this way of conceptualizing the overcriminalization problem. The real problem with overcriminalization is qualitative, not quantitative: federal crimes are poorly defined, and courts all too often expansively construe poorly defined crimes. Courts thus are not p

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

外文文献原文：

Much contemporary criminal justice scholarship describes the system as a dystopia. That is an old phenomenon come 'round again.'In the 'bad old days,' back when many states operated criminal justice systems that were 'a pious charade,' so far removed from the textbook ideal as to be a parody how the criminal process should work, academics took delight in identifying systemic flaws in state and local criminal processes and in skewering their law enforcement officials for pursuing an atavistic approach to justice.' Later, as the Supreme Court roped in the outliers, commentators analyzed the doctrinal development of substantive criminal law and the course taken by the Supreme Court in its attempts to iron out the remaining procedural wrinkles in federal and state efforts to investigate crimes and dispose of cases?

Today, the academy less often analyzes Supreme Court case law than it pursues systems analysis of the criminal justice process. The problems depicted are not minor blemishes. The system seems beset by core defects that should have been fixed long ago: prosecutors withholding or concealing obviously exculpatory evidence, the governments refusal to fund forensic examinations-DNA tests in particular-that could establish with near certainty whether a given individual committed particular crime, the conviction of innocent defendants represented by appointed defense counsel too swamped with cases and too severely underfunded to properly investigate the charges against their clients, and the sight of prisoners stacked like cordwood in the nations prisons.

One of those flaws is 'overcriminalization.' The crux of that neologism consists of the use of the criminal law to punish conduct that traditionally would not be deemed morally blameworthy.13 Every society has found it necessary to identify some conduct as verboten in order for civil society to exist, and to accompany that list with some form of punishment in order to give those prohibitions teeth. The alternative is bellum omnium contra ones.' Having too many criminal laws, however, creates a different set of problems.

译文：许多当代刑事司法学术研究将该系统描述为一个乌托邦。这是一个古老的现象，'又来了。'在 '糟糕的过去'，早在许多州的刑事司法系统是 '虔诚的戏法'，与教科书上的理想相去甚远，以至于模仿刑事程序应该如何运作，学者们很高兴发现州和地方刑事程序的系统性缺陷，并嘲笑他们的执法官员对司法采取厌恶的态度。' 后来，随着最高法院将离群索居，评论家们分析了实体刑法的理论发展，以及最高法院在试图消除联邦和州在调查犯罪和处理案件方面剩余的程序性问题时所采取的方针？

今天，学术界较少分析最高法院的判例法，而是追求对刑事司法程序的系统分析。所描述的问题并不是小瑕疵。这个系统似乎被一些早就应该解决的核心缺陷所困扰：检察官扣留或隐瞒明显的无罪证据，政府拒绝资助法医检查--特别是DNA测试--这些检查可以非常肯定地确定某个人是否犯下了特定的罪行，由指定的辩护律师代表的无辜被告被定罪，因为案件太多，资金严重不足，无法适当调查对其客户的指控，以及全国监狱中囚犯像木柴一样堆积的景象。

其中一个缺陷是 '过度犯罪化'。13 每个社会都发现有必要将一些行为确定为禁忌，以使公民社会得以存在，并以某种形式的惩罚来配合这一清单，以使这些禁令具有效力。另一种选择是 '全境禁止'（bellum omnium contra ones）。然而，有太多的刑事法律，会产生一系列不同的问题。

原文：As this conference and the papers presented here illustrate, the issue of overcriminalization has moved beyond the critique of economic and regulatory crimes with which it began into mainstream commentary on criminal law. Scholars now routinely link overcriminalization to such significant issues as the increased discretion of federal prosecutors, federalization of criminal law, notice problems in view of the breadth and vagueness of offenses, use of civil standards in evaluating criminal conduct, and debate over the consequentialist justification for criminal laws. Associating these trends with overcriminalization, however, provides a description rather than a definition of the term. The absence of a definition makes it difficult to determine whether and how the propensity of Congress to enact criminal laws contributes to those issues.

On a practical level, without a working definition, we fall victim to the 'I know it when I see it' syndrome. This syndrome allows those who oppose certain legislation to give it the negative label of overcriminalization whenever they do not like a new law. Conversely,advocates of a new criminal law can defend legislation even when it may be unnecessary or ineffective. Without a functional definition of the term, new crimes cannot be evaluated to determine on which side of the divide they fall.

Current efforts to control the unlawful use of copyrighted material through criminal laws illustrate the 'I know it when I seen it' syndrome. Proponents of using criminal law to protect the interests of those who hold copyrights view criminalization as a natural evolution--an inevitable recognition of the economic value of music,films, and other copyrighted material and the harm that infringers can cause. Others view these changes as an inappropriate extension of the reach of criminal law that threatens the publics right to use copyrighted material lawfully. Which view is more accurate? In order to determine whether the new laws 'overcriminalize,' we need to have a clear sense of what the concept means.

译文：正如本次会议和在此提交的论文所表明的，过度犯罪的问题已经超越了它开始时对经济和监管犯罪的批评，进入了刑法的主流评论。学者们现在经常将过度犯罪与诸如联邦检察官的自由裁量权增加、刑法的联邦化、鉴于犯罪行为的广泛性和模糊性而产生的通知问题、在评估犯罪行为时使用民事标准以及关于刑法的后果性理由的辩论等重大问题联系起来。然而，将这些趋势与过度犯罪联系起来，只是提供了一种描述，而不是对该术语的定义。由于缺乏定义，很难确定国会颁布刑法的倾向是否以及如何促成这些问题。

在实践层面上，如果没有一个有效的定义，我们就会成为 '我看到就知道 '综合症的受害者。这种综合症使那些反对某些立法的人在不喜欢某项新法律时就给它贴上过度犯罪的负面标签。相反，新刑法的倡导者可以为立法辩护，即使它可能是不必要的或无效的。如果没有一个实用的定义，就无法对新犯罪进行评估，以确定它们属于哪一方。

目前通过刑法控制非法使用版权材料的努力说明了 '见怪不怪 '的综合症。支持使用刑法来保护拥有版权的人的利益的人认为刑事化是一种自然的演变--对音乐、电影和其他版权材料的经济价值以及侵权者可能造成的伤害的不可避免的认识。其他人则认为这些变化是对刑法范围的不适当扩展，威胁到公众合法使用版权材料的权利。哪种观点更准确？为了确定新的法律是否 '过度定罪'，我们需要对这个概念的含义有一个清晰的认识。

原文：The literature treats overcriminalization (and, at the federal level, the federalization of crime) as a quantitative problem. Legislatures, on this view, have simply enacted too many crimes, and those crimes are far too broad in scope. This Article uses federal criminal law as a basis for challenging this way of conceptualizing the overcriminalization problem. The real problem with overcriminalization is qualitative, not quantitative: federal crimes are poorly defined, and courts all too often expansively construe poorly defined crimes. Courts thus are not p

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[596825]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word