日本犯罪过失研究
|
摘要
犯罪过失理论是日本20世纪刑法学中探讨最为热烈的领域,在旧过失论之后,又提出了新过失论、新新过失论。目前的通说是新过失论。三大过失论围绕着预见可能性和结果避免义务这两个核心问题展开激烈争论。其结果是,具体的预见可能性被一定程度的抽象化,在过失的认定顺序上,强调从确定结果避免义务出发再探讨预见可能性问题。以结果避免义务为中心,使得犯罪过失不再是责任要素,而是构成要件要素。犯罪过失地位的变化蕴涵着架空责任论和否定三段式犯罪论的危险。追究犯罪过失责任原则上以法律规定为限,但由于结果避免义务是行动基准,犯罪过失责任正在扩大化。尤其监督过失理论使得追究监督者过失责任更加容易。限制过失责任和监督过失责任的理论是容许的危险理论以及在其基础上形成的信赖原则。
我国目前的旧过失论立场,不仅难以应对过失犯罪的状况,也难以直接引进日本的通说新过失论,因此必须修改犯罪过失的法律规定。在此基础上,我国借鉴日本犯罪过失论是可能的。借鉴日本新过失论之外,我国也具备了在一定范围内适用信赖原则的条件。另外,鉴于我国的过失犯罪状况,迫切需要及时引进监督过失理论,坚决追究监督者的过失责任。
With the rapid increase of crime of negligence and its serious damage, criminal negligence is becoming one of the focuses in theoretic studies on criminal law. While on the other hand, theories of criminal law from Germany and Japan have been models for our theories of criminal law. Japan can boast of its rich achievements in the theory of criminal negligence, which is indispensable for the development of theory of criminal negligence in China.
After the Second World War, the number of negligent offences increased rapidly, esp. in fields like transportation, public pollution, etc., which has caught intense public attention. Parallel to the state of affairs of negligent offences, Japan’s theory on criminal negligence has undergone great development, and gradually become the field of most heated discussions in criminal law studies in the 20th century. The neo-theory of negligence, following the old theory of negligence, is again followed by the new neo-theory of negligence. At the present state of development, the neo-theory of negligence is the most popular one. The three types of theories of negligence are involved in heated discussions with as their core the possibility of predictability and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The Morinaga milk scandal and the subsequent discussion bring the theory of criminal negligence into further depth, and together with it are the position of negligent offence in crimes in general, the theory of permissible danger, the principle of good faith, the negligence of supervision, etc. The theory of criminal negligence in Japan accords to the social development and reveals the restriction and enlargement of the range of penalty concerning negligent offences. Furthermore, Japan’s theory of criminal negligence is heavily influenced by teleological behavioral science and the core of criminal negligence shifts from the duty of prediction of consequences to the duty of avoidance of consequences, and from the insignificance of consequences to that of behaviors concerning the punishability of criminal negligence. In addition, the theory of objective allocation of responsibility from Germany also has some bearing on the theory of criminal negligence in Japan. On the other hand, as an oppositional theory, the former does not pose substantial threat against the latter.
Concerning the ontology of criminal negligence, there are four aspects, namely, the concept and type of criminal negligence, the basic assertions of the three major conception of negligence, the question of possibility of prediction and the duty of the avoidance of consequences as the core of negligence theory, and the theoretic significance of the doctrine of the sense of jeopardy.
First, the concept of criminal negligence does not appear in Japan’s criminal law and the interpretation of the theory of criminal negligence is performed by doctrines and judicial precedents. Many Japanese scholars propose their own concepts of criminal negligence, which can be roughly classified into the old theory of negligence, the neo-theory of negligence and the new neo-theory of negligence. The concept of criminal negligence is further exacted and revised with the advancement of relevant studies, which makes it possible for the revision and integration of the three types of theory of criminal negligence. The typology of criminal negligence is rich and abundant, and it can be subdivided into conscious and unconscious negligence, operational and ordinary negligence, grave and common negligence, negligence of supervision, negligence of management, etc. Second, the basic assertion of the three theories of negligence is as follows: the old theory of negligence centers around the duty of the prediction of consequences to define criminal negligence. It requires concrete objects of prediction and consequence is its indispensable part. And the possibility of prediction is also required. The neo-theory of negligence centers around the duty of the avoidance of consequences. It defines criminal negligence from the two aspects of the duty of the prediction of consequences and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The new neo-theory of negligence centers around the duty of the avoidance of consequences. It holds that the existence of jeopardy that cannot be disregarded connotes the possibility of prediction and enables the confirmation of the negligence. In other words, it replaces the concrete possibility of prediction in the old and neo-theory of negligence with the sense jeopardy that cannot be disregarded. Third, as to the possibility of prediction, its standard is always a target of debate. As to the standard of the possibility of prediction, the criminal law circle in Japan recognizes three doctrines, the subjective doctrine, the objective doctrine, and the compromise between the two. The objective doctrine is generally adopted in Japanese courts while the theoretic majority is the compromised standard. As to the object and degree of the possibility of prediction, it is commonly held by Japanese scholars that the object of the possibility of prediction consists of the consequences derived from the behavior of criminal negligence and the causal relationship between the two. The degree of the possibility of prediction must be concrete, i.e. it must be possible for people to predict the consequences and the basic part of the causal relation. As to the duty of the avoidance of consequences, many scholars emphasize the order of the cognizance of criminal negligence. The fact that the cognizance of negligence stems from the possibility of prediction or from consequences has bearing on the confirmation of the duty of avoidance as well as on the function of the duty of avoidance of consequences in the confirmation of criminal negligence. Besides, the confirmation of the content of the duty of the avoidance of consequences is related to the technological development and jeopardy that goes with it. Finally, the case of the Morinaga milk scandal is the only one that adopted the sense of jeopardy which makes it theoretically significant. The duty of the avoidance of consequences is the logical starting point of the duty of care. The concrete possibility of prediction is replaced by the sense of jeopardy to improve the duty of the avoidance of consequences and to further reflect on the possibility of prediction, the sense of jeopardy and the principle of good faith. However, after this case, there is a dangerous trend to negate blindly the concrete possibility of prediction and to abuse the new neo-theory of negligence. This trend is timely criticized and corrected.
All in all, the old theory of negligence, the neo-theory of negligence and the new neo-theory of negligence are all centered around the duo cores of the possibility of prediction and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. As a result, the concrete possibility of prediction can no longer be fully and completely implemented and is replaced by possibility of prediction of the consequences as constitutive requirements and the basic causal relation. As to the order of the cognizance of negligence, the conception that it should start from the possibility of prediction is discarded and it now starts with consequences, then the duty of the avoidance of consequences is exacted and still then the possibility of prediction can be discussed, hence the core position of the duty of the avoidance of consequences in criminal negligence. The sense of jeopardy should not be understood as abstract as well, and rather, it should be sense of jeopardy based on reality. Its existence can be used as proof of the prediction of consequences.
The significance of criminal negligence in the theories of crime is a target of heated debates. The old theory of negligence regard negligence simply as the element of responsibility. The neo-theory of negligence regards negligence also as element of constitutive requirements. The significance of criminal negligence is not only related to the theory of negligence, but also to the theory of crime. The significance of criminal negligence in Japan is closely related to the development of the theory of crime and is forever changing. At present, because of the fact that constitutive requirements are seen as law-specified crime, criminal negligence has as its core the duty of the avoidance of consequences and it is necessarily the constitutive requirement. The change of the position of criminal negligence connotes the possible negation of the theory of responsibility and the alienation of the syllogism of crime. Concerning the responsibility of criminal negligence in Japan, it includes the nature of criminal negligence, its principle, the theory of permissible danger, and the theory of good faith. First, the nature of the responsibility of criminal negligence is focused by the doctrine of moral obligation, the doctrine of social responsibility, the doctrine of psychological responsibility, the doctrine of regulatory responsibility, etc. At the present stage of development, most Japanese scholars support the doctrine of regulatory responsibility. While the doctrine of moral obligation also has its rationality, i.e. its emphasis on the connection between moral obligation and legal responsibility. Second, Japanese criminal law has as its principle the confirmation of the criminal responsibility of the intentional criminals. However, the actual range of penalty of the intentional criminal is not clear and in practice it is often wider than is laid down in criminal law. Third, the theory of permissible danger is one of the theories about the exempt of the responsibility of criminal negligence. This theory can limit the functioning of the responsibility of criminal negligence. It holds that there are many hazardous deeds in modern society and they should not be fully prohibited for the sake of social development. Rather, they should be tolerated. There are many doctrines concerning the theory of permissible jeopardy, for example, the doctrine of the blocking of the constitutive requirements, the doctrine of the blocking of the illegality, the doctrine of negligent responsibility, etc. The major objects of the application of permissible jeopardy consist of the driving of high speed vehicles, the deeds of risky mining, the protection of human life and health (doctors’operations, emergency rescue), scientific experiments, sports rescue, etc. The range of application of permissible jeopardy should be limited and this comprises general limitation and concrete limitation. Finally, the principle of good faith based on the theory of permissible jeopardy can also limit criminal negligence. There are wide and narrow definitions of the principle of good faith. The wide definition of the principle of good faith applies to the general suspects of negligence, esp. to those whose behavior is relevant to the consequences. The narrow definition of the principle of good faith can only be applied to traffic accidents. The old theory of negligence holds that the possibility of prediction can be further divided into actual possibility of prediction and possibility of prediction that is under the duty of care in criminal law. When the possibility of prediction actually exists, the principle of good faith is the criteria for the judgment of the imposition of the duty of care of the criminal law. the neo-theory of negligence use the principle of good faith as the criteria for the judgment of the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The application of the principle of good faith is limited by many conditions, mainly in terms of range of application, objects of application, typical accidents of application, and special occasion that does not admit the application of this principle.
The criminal negligence in Japan is significant for China. We now face a dilemma between the rapid increase of negligent offenses and the backwardness of our theory of criminal negligence. We are now entering into a modern society and we are gradually facing crimes concerning high-speed traffic, environmental pollution, food safety, production safety, etc., while on the other hand our basic theory of criminal negligence falls far behind. As a result, our knowledge of the ability to care, the structure of criminal negligence is far from enough. Our learning of Japan’s criminal negligence is not only necessary but also possible. Our constitutive requirement of crime is similar to that of Japan and our theory of crime share some substantial similarity with that of Japan, though they are different in term of structure. Therefore, against the backdrop of our entering into a modern society, we should first of all learn from the basic assertions of the neo-theory of negligence and use the new neo-theory of negligence as a complement. Second, we should gradually refer to the principle of good faith and its range of application and conditions of limitation. On the other hand, our issues of food safety, environmental pollution and production safety from enterprises and factories increasingly catch people’s attention. This contrasts sharply with our absence of the theory of negligence of supervision. Our knowledge of the negligence of supervision is far from clear and supervisors often escape from their responsibility of the negligence of supervision. This indulgence in law and the increase in accident-oriented negligent offences cannot be balanced in reality. As a result, we should also learn from Japan’s theory of negligence of supervision to strengthen the validation of the negligence of supervision by supervisors.
我国目前的旧过失论立场,不仅难以应对过失犯罪的状况,也难以直接引进日本的通说新过失论,因此必须修改犯罪过失的法律规定。在此基础上,我国借鉴日本犯罪过失论是可能的。借鉴日本新过失论之外,我国也具备了在一定范围内适用信赖原则的条件。另外,鉴于我国的过失犯罪状况,迫切需要及时引进监督过失理论,坚决追究监督者的过失责任。
With the rapid increase of crime of negligence and its serious damage, criminal negligence is becoming one of the focuses in theoretic studies on criminal law. While on the other hand, theories of criminal law from Germany and Japan have been models for our theories of criminal law. Japan can boast of its rich achievements in the theory of criminal negligence, which is indispensable for the development of theory of criminal negligence in China.
After the Second World War, the number of negligent offences increased rapidly, esp. in fields like transportation, public pollution, etc., which has caught intense public attention. Parallel to the state of affairs of negligent offences, Japan’s theory on criminal negligence has undergone great development, and gradually become the field of most heated discussions in criminal law studies in the 20th century. The neo-theory of negligence, following the old theory of negligence, is again followed by the new neo-theory of negligence. At the present state of development, the neo-theory of negligence is the most popular one. The three types of theories of negligence are involved in heated discussions with as their core the possibility of predictability and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The Morinaga milk scandal and the subsequent discussion bring the theory of criminal negligence into further depth, and together with it are the position of negligent offence in crimes in general, the theory of permissible danger, the principle of good faith, the negligence of supervision, etc. The theory of criminal negligence in Japan accords to the social development and reveals the restriction and enlargement of the range of penalty concerning negligent offences. Furthermore, Japan’s theory of criminal negligence is heavily influenced by teleological behavioral science and the core of criminal negligence shifts from the duty of prediction of consequences to the duty of avoidance of consequences, and from the insignificance of consequences to that of behaviors concerning the punishability of criminal negligence. In addition, the theory of objective allocation of responsibility from Germany also has some bearing on the theory of criminal negligence in Japan. On the other hand, as an oppositional theory, the former does not pose substantial threat against the latter.
Concerning the ontology of criminal negligence, there are four aspects, namely, the concept and type of criminal negligence, the basic assertions of the three major conception of negligence, the question of possibility of prediction and the duty of the avoidance of consequences as the core of negligence theory, and the theoretic significance of the doctrine of the sense of jeopardy.
First, the concept of criminal negligence does not appear in Japan’s criminal law and the interpretation of the theory of criminal negligence is performed by doctrines and judicial precedents. Many Japanese scholars propose their own concepts of criminal negligence, which can be roughly classified into the old theory of negligence, the neo-theory of negligence and the new neo-theory of negligence. The concept of criminal negligence is further exacted and revised with the advancement of relevant studies, which makes it possible for the revision and integration of the three types of theory of criminal negligence. The typology of criminal negligence is rich and abundant, and it can be subdivided into conscious and unconscious negligence, operational and ordinary negligence, grave and common negligence, negligence of supervision, negligence of management, etc. Second, the basic assertion of the three theories of negligence is as follows: the old theory of negligence centers around the duty of the prediction of consequences to define criminal negligence. It requires concrete objects of prediction and consequence is its indispensable part. And the possibility of prediction is also required. The neo-theory of negligence centers around the duty of the avoidance of consequences. It defines criminal negligence from the two aspects of the duty of the prediction of consequences and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The new neo-theory of negligence centers around the duty of the avoidance of consequences. It holds that the existence of jeopardy that cannot be disregarded connotes the possibility of prediction and enables the confirmation of the negligence. In other words, it replaces the concrete possibility of prediction in the old and neo-theory of negligence with the sense jeopardy that cannot be disregarded. Third, as to the possibility of prediction, its standard is always a target of debate. As to the standard of the possibility of prediction, the criminal law circle in Japan recognizes three doctrines, the subjective doctrine, the objective doctrine, and the compromise between the two. The objective doctrine is generally adopted in Japanese courts while the theoretic majority is the compromised standard. As to the object and degree of the possibility of prediction, it is commonly held by Japanese scholars that the object of the possibility of prediction consists of the consequences derived from the behavior of criminal negligence and the causal relationship between the two. The degree of the possibility of prediction must be concrete, i.e. it must be possible for people to predict the consequences and the basic part of the causal relation. As to the duty of the avoidance of consequences, many scholars emphasize the order of the cognizance of criminal negligence. The fact that the cognizance of negligence stems from the possibility of prediction or from consequences has bearing on the confirmation of the duty of avoidance as well as on the function of the duty of avoidance of consequences in the confirmation of criminal negligence. Besides, the confirmation of the content of the duty of the avoidance of consequences is related to the technological development and jeopardy that goes with it. Finally, the case of the Morinaga milk scandal is the only one that adopted the sense of jeopardy which makes it theoretically significant. The duty of the avoidance of consequences is the logical starting point of the duty of care. The concrete possibility of prediction is replaced by the sense of jeopardy to improve the duty of the avoidance of consequences and to further reflect on the possibility of prediction, the sense of jeopardy and the principle of good faith. However, after this case, there is a dangerous trend to negate blindly the concrete possibility of prediction and to abuse the new neo-theory of negligence. This trend is timely criticized and corrected.
All in all, the old theory of negligence, the neo-theory of negligence and the new neo-theory of negligence are all centered around the duo cores of the possibility of prediction and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. As a result, the concrete possibility of prediction can no longer be fully and completely implemented and is replaced by possibility of prediction of the consequences as constitutive requirements and the basic causal relation. As to the order of the cognizance of negligence, the conception that it should start from the possibility of prediction is discarded and it now starts with consequences, then the duty of the avoidance of consequences is exacted and still then the possibility of prediction can be discussed, hence the core position of the duty of the avoidance of consequences in criminal negligence. The sense of jeopardy should not be understood as abstract as well, and rather, it should be sense of jeopardy based on reality. Its existence can be used as proof of the prediction of consequences.
The significance of criminal negligence in the theories of crime is a target of heated debates. The old theory of negligence regard negligence simply as the element of responsibility. The neo-theory of negligence regards negligence also as element of constitutive requirements. The significance of criminal negligence is not only related to the theory of negligence, but also to the theory of crime. The significance of criminal negligence in Japan is closely related to the development of the theory of crime and is forever changing. At present, because of the fact that constitutive requirements are seen as law-specified crime, criminal negligence has as its core the duty of the avoidance of consequences and it is necessarily the constitutive requirement. The change of the position of criminal negligence connotes the possible negation of the theory of responsibility and the alienation of the syllogism of crime. Concerning the responsibility of criminal negligence in Japan, it includes the nature of criminal negligence, its principle, the theory of permissible danger, and the theory of good faith. First, the nature of the responsibility of criminal negligence is focused by the doctrine of moral obligation, the doctrine of social responsibility, the doctrine of psychological responsibility, the doctrine of regulatory responsibility, etc. At the present stage of development, most Japanese scholars support the doctrine of regulatory responsibility. While the doctrine of moral obligation also has its rationality, i.e. its emphasis on the connection between moral obligation and legal responsibility. Second, Japanese criminal law has as its principle the confirmation of the criminal responsibility of the intentional criminals. However, the actual range of penalty of the intentional criminal is not clear and in practice it is often wider than is laid down in criminal law. Third, the theory of permissible danger is one of the theories about the exempt of the responsibility of criminal negligence. This theory can limit the functioning of the responsibility of criminal negligence. It holds that there are many hazardous deeds in modern society and they should not be fully prohibited for the sake of social development. Rather, they should be tolerated. There are many doctrines concerning the theory of permissible jeopardy, for example, the doctrine of the blocking of the constitutive requirements, the doctrine of the blocking of the illegality, the doctrine of negligent responsibility, etc. The major objects of the application of permissible jeopardy consist of the driving of high speed vehicles, the deeds of risky mining, the protection of human life and health (doctors’operations, emergency rescue), scientific experiments, sports rescue, etc. The range of application of permissible jeopardy should be limited and this comprises general limitation and concrete limitation. Finally, the principle of good faith based on the theory of permissible jeopardy can also limit criminal negligence. There are wide and narrow definitions of the principle of good faith. The wide definition of the principle of good faith applies to the general suspects of negligence, esp. to those whose behavior is relevant to the consequences. The narrow definition of the principle of good faith can only be applied to traffic accidents. The old theory of negligence holds that the possibility of prediction can be further divided into actual possibility of prediction and possibility of prediction that is under the duty of care in criminal law. When the possibility of prediction actually exists, the principle of good faith is the criteria for the judgment of the imposition of the duty of care of the criminal law. the neo-theory of negligence use the principle of good faith as the criteria for the judgment of the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The application of the principle of good faith is limited by many conditions, mainly in terms of range of application, objects of application, typical accidents of application, and special occasion that does not admit the application of this principle.
The criminal negligence in Japan is significant for China. We now face a dilemma between the rapid increase of negligent offenses and the backwardness of our theory of criminal negligence. We are now entering into a modern society and we are gradually facing crimes concerning high-speed traffic, environmental pollution, food safety, production safety, etc., while on the other hand our basic theory of criminal negligence falls far behind. As a result, our knowledge of the ability to care, the structure of criminal negligence is far from enough. Our learning of Japan’s criminal negligence is not only necessary but also possible. Our constitutive requirement of crime is similar to that of Japan and our theory of crime share some substantial similarity with that of Japan, though they are different in term of structure. Therefore, against the backdrop of our entering into a modern society, we should first of all learn from the basic assertions of the neo-theory of negligence and use the new neo-theory of negligence as a complement. Second, we should gradually refer to the principle of good faith and its range of application and conditions of limitation. On the other hand, our issues of food safety, environmental pollution and production safety from enterprises and factories increasingly catch people’s attention. This contrasts sharply with our absence of the theory of negligence of supervision. Our knowledge of the negligence of supervision is far from clear and supervisors often escape from their responsibility of the negligence of supervision. This indulgence in law and the increase in accident-oriented negligent offences cannot be balanced in reality. As a result, we should also learn from Japan’s theory of negligence of supervision to strengthen the validation of the negligence of supervision by supervisors.
引文
①[日]日本刑法典[M].张明楷,译.北京:法律出版社,2006:20.
②[日]甲斐克则.过失犯的基础理论[C]//冯军,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:1.
①张志辉.理性地对待犯罪[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:60.
①黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:17-20.
②[日]大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏,译.北京:法律出版社,2000:32-34.
①[日]北川佳世子.交通事故和过失论[C]//黎宏,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:66-67.
②日本毒奶粉事件绵延50年[N/OL].国际先驱导报,2008-10-09(7),[2009-03-30]. http://xqdb.blog.sohu.com/101566810.html.
③[日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:257-258.
④毒油毒米曾严重危害日本人[N].环球时报,2008-9-26(13).
⑤[日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:253-255.
①[日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:252-268.
②[日]大塚裕史.企业灾害和过失论[C]//黎宏,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:88-93.
③[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂,2007:1.
④[日]大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏,译.北京:法律出版社,2000:32-34.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:34.
②[日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂,1980:197.
①黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:170.
①[日]北川佳世子.交通事故和过失论[C]//黎宏,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:66-68.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:30.
③李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:31.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:296-297.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:138.
②[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:31-37.
①我国台湾学者译为客观归责理论,被我国大陆学者采用,为论述的方便,笔者下文将采用客观归责理论的译法.
②[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:37-39.
③[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:114-115.
④[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:108.
①许玉秀.主观与客观之间——主观理论与客观归责[M].北京:法律出版社,2008:197.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:115.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:139-140.
②[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:2.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:182-188.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(上)[M].北京:法律出版社,1995:105.
②[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:188-189.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:189-191.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(上)[M].北京:法律出版社,1995:233-234.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:31-33.
③[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:194-196.
④[日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂,1980:22-23.
①黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:179.
①黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:179.
②黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:179.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:28-36.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:121.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:121-123.
②张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:37.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:6-9.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:99-100.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:152-153.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:35.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:4-5.
①[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:207.
②[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:218.
③[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:207.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:5-7
②[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:207-208.
③[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:7.
④[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:207-208.
①[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:210.
②[日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂,1980:195-197.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:169.
①[日]甲斐克則.責任原理と過失犯論[M].東京:成文堂,2005:97-98.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:170-172.
②林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:85.
③林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:86.
①[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:151.
②[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:170.
③林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:88-89.
①[日]甲斐克则.过失犯的基础理论[C]//冯军,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:5-6.
②[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:153.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂,2007:115-116.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:126.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:315-316.
②[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:316-318.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:318-320.
②[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:321-322.
①[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:106-107.
①[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:107-110.
①[日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂.1975:20-24.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:134-136.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:233.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:105.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:253.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:33.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:308-309.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:33-34.
②[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:372.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:295-302.
①林亚刚.试论德、日刑法中犯罪过失在犯罪论体系中的地位[J].国家检察官学院学报,2000,8(1):36.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:302-306.
①[日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:256-274.
②林亚刚.德、日刑法犯罪过失学说介评[J].法学评论,2000(2):146.
③[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:211.
①[日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂高文社,1980:198-201.
②[日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂,1980:34.
③[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂,2007:228.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:231.
②[日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂,1980:30-37.
③[日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂,1980:30-41.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:302-306.
①林亚刚.试论德、日刑法中犯罪过失在犯罪论体系中的地位[J].国家检察官学院学报,2000,8(1):37.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:71.
①林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:52-53.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:198.
①[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:4-7.
①[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:16.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:53.
③[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:7.
①[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:2-5.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:30-31.
①林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:48.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:32-34.
③李洁.三大法系犯罪构成论体系性特征比较研究[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论(第2卷).北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:424.
①李洁.三大法系犯罪构成论体系性特征比较研究[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论(第2卷).北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:424-425.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:59.
③张明楷.外国刑法纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999:76-77.
①林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:50.
②林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000,48-49.
③方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:63.
①李立众.犯罪成立理论研究:一个域外方向的尝试[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:125.
②李洁.三大法系犯罪构成论体系性特征比较研究[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论(第2卷).北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:427.
③[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:15.
①[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:29.
②[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:38.
③[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:16.
①张明楷.外国刑法纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999:40-47.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:31-32.
①[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:43.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:70-72.
①[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:25.
②林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:51.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:18-22.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:10.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:36.
②张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:215.
③黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:141.
④黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:142.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:215-216.
②黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:142.
③张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:216.
①[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:78.
②[美]伯尔曼.法律与革命:西方法律传统的形成[M].贺卫方,等,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993:13.
③任喜容.伦理刑法及其终结[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:3.
④黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:141.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:216.
②黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:169.张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:224-225.
①[日]中山研一,米田漛邦.火災と刑事責任[M].東京:成文堂,1993:121-138.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:240-241.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:251.
②赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:64-66.
③方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:241.
①赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:68.
②[德]耶赛克,魏根特.德国刑法教科书(总论)[M].徐久生,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2001:311.
①赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:72-73.
②赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:73-74.
③赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:74.
④方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:248-249.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:250.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:33.
①王扬,丁芝华.客观归责理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006:27.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:33-34.
①赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:77-78.
①王扬,丁芝华.客观归责理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006:128.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:49.
③[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:50.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:51-52.
②赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:8-13.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:56-57.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:52.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:54.赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:112-113.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:54.赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:116.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:50-51.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:58-59.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:70-71.
②赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:130.
③[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:75.
④赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:134-135.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:78-81.
①赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:150-162.
①2008年全国机动车和驾驶人统计[EB/OL].(2009-01-04)[2009-03-30]. http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n1282/n3553/1770193.html.
①2008年全国道路交通事故情况[EB/OL].(2009-01-04)[2009-03-30].http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n1282/ n3553/1770249.html.
②苏惠渔.现实与理念之间——过失交通犯罪研究[C]//高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:50.
③“撞了不白撞”规定细化了[EB/OL].(2008-05-01)[2009-03-30]. http://www.szqcw.com/article/2008/0501/article_7552.html.
①苏惠渔.现实与理念之间——过失交通犯罪研究[C]//高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:57-58.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:3-4.
②方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006(10):142.
①方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006(10):142.
②李立众,吴学斌.刑法新思潮:张明楷教授学术观点探究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008:98-115.
③方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2006(10):142.
①方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006(10):110.
②黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:183.
①[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:156-157.
①[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:125.
①林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:159.
①环保总局通报北江镉污染等6起重大环境事件[EB/OL].(2006-02-06)[2009-3-30]. http://news.ifeng.com/phoenixtv/83881742083031040/20060206/741504.shtml.
②湖南100万人受职业病威胁矽肺病发病居全国第一[EB/OL].(2006-02-06)[2009-3-30]. http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-10-23/0956974721s.shtml.
①辽宁葫芦岛矿工患矽肺病人数不断增加[EB/OL].(2004-07-05)[2009-03-30]. http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2004- 07-05/16152996085s.shtml.
[1]高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集[C].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[2]林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000.
[3]黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004.
[4]李海东.日本刑事法学者(上)[M].北京:法律出版社,1995.
[5]李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[6]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第2卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[7]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第5卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[8]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[9]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第7卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[10]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第10卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[11]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第14卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[12]蔡枢衡.中国刑法史[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2005.
[13]陈兴良.刑法哲学(第3版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[14]陈兴良.本体刑法学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[15]陈兴良.当代中国刑法新视界[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[16]陈兴良.刑法的价值构造[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[17]陈兴良.刑法的启蒙[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[18]陈兴良.刑法的人性基础(第2版)[M].北京:中国方正出版社,1999.
[19]陈兴良.刑法理念导读[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[20]陈兴良.走向哲学的刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[21]陈瑞华.刑事诉讼中的中国模式[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[22]储槐植.刑事一体化[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[23]崔永东.中西法律文化比较[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[24]邓子滨.刑事法中的推定[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003.
[25]范德繁.犯罪实行行为论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2005.
[26]方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.
[27]冯军.比较刑法研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[28]冯军,李春雷.外国刑法学概论[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2004.
[29]冯亚东.理性主义与刑法模式[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[30]韩忠谟.刑法原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[31]何勤华.西方法学家列传[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[32]柯耀程.变动中的刑法思想[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[33]赖早兴.刑法平等论[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[34]李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006.
[35]李洁.犯罪既遂形态研究[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1999.
[36]李立众.犯罪成立理论研究:一个域外方向的尝试[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[37]李立众,吴学斌.刑法新思潮:张明楷教授学术观点探究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[38]李晓明.行政刑法学导论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[39]李文伟.法人刑事责任比较研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006.
[40]李兰英.间接故意研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006.
[41]梁根林.刑事法网:扩张与限缩[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[42]梁治平.寻求自然秩序中的和谐[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[43]林维.刑法解释的权力分析[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[44]刘树德.宪政维度的刑法新思考[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[45]刘艳红.开放的犯罪构成要件理论研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[46]刘远.刑事法哲学初论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004.
[47]刘远.刑法本体论及其展开[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007.
[48]刘明祥.错误论[M].北京:法律出版社,成文堂联合出版,1998.
[49]卢建平.刑事政策学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[50]马克昌.犯罪通论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000.
[51]马克昌.刑罚通论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2002.
[52]马跃.美国刑事司法制度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[53]孟庆华.犯罪构成适用:重点疑点难点问题判解研究[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[54]邱兴隆.关于惩罚的哲学——刑罚根据论[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[55]邱兴隆.刑罚理性评论——刑罚的正当性反思[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[56]曲新久.刑法的精神与范畴(2003年修订版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[57]任喜容.伦理刑法及其终结[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
[58]任喜容.刑官的世界——中国法律人职业化的历史透视[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[59]史卫忠.行为犯研究[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2002.
[60]苏力.法治及其本土资源[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996.
[61]苏惠渔,孙万怀.论国家刑权力[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[62]童德华.刑法中的期待可能性论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[63]童德华.规范刑法原理[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005.
[64]王晨.刑事责任的一般理论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1999.
[65]王扬,丁芝华.客观归责理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[66]王志远.犯罪成立理论原理——前序性研究[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2005.
[67]文海林.刑法科学主义初论[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[68]吴振兴.罪数形态论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1999.
[69]吴振兴.犯罪形态研究精要[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[70]谢望原.欧陆刑罚制度与刑罚价值原理[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004.
[71]许玉秀.当代刑法思潮[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2005.
[72]许玉秀.主观与客观之间——主观理论与客观归责[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[73]徐岱.中国刑法近代化论纲[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.
[74]徐国栋.民法典与民法哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[75]翟中东.犯罪控制——动态平衡论的见解[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[76]张明楷.法益初论(2003年修订版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[77]张明楷.外国刑法纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999.
[78]张明楷.刑法的基本立场[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2003.
[79]张明楷.刑法学(第2版)[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[80]张明楷.刑法分则的解释原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[81]张明楷.刑法格言的展开[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[82]张旭.减免刑事责任理论比较研究[M].长春:长春出版社,1994.
[83]张旭.跨国犯罪的惩治与防范——现状、问题与应对[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2008.
[84]张智辉.理性地对待犯罪[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[85]张智辉.刑事责任通论[M].北京:警官教育出版社,1995.
[86]张智辉.刑事责任比较研究[M].台北:五南图书出版公司,1996.
[87]张国军.刑庭二十八年[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社,2007.
[88]赵秉志.犯罪总论问题探索[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[89]赵秉志.刑法基础理论探索[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[90]赵秉志.刑法评论(第6卷)[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[91]赵秉志.刑事责任专题整理[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007.
[92]赵秉志,魏昌东.刑法哲学专题整理[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2007.
[93]赵秉志.中国刑法案例与学理研究(第1卷)[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[94]赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007.
[95]周光权.刑法学的向度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[96]周少华.刑法理性与规范技术——刑法功能的发生机理[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2007.
[97][日]日本刑法典[M].张明楷,译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[98][日]川岛武宜.现代化与法[M].申政武,等,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[99][日]泷川幸辰.犯罪论序说[M].王泰,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[100][日]曾根威彦.刑法学基础[M].黎宏,等,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[101][日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[102][日]西原春夫.刑法的根据与哲学[M].顾肖荣,等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[103][日]大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏,译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[104][日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[105][日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.
[106][日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[107][日]六本佳平.日本法与日本社会[M].刘银良,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[108][德]克劳斯·罗克辛.德国刑法学总论(第1卷)——犯罪原理的基础构造[M].王世洲,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[109][德]耶赛克,魏根特.德国刑法教科书(总论)[M].徐久生,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2001.
[110][德]恩施特·贝林.构成要件理论[M].王安异,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[111][德]吕格恩特·雅科布斯.行为责任刑法——机能性描述[M].冯军,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[112][德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[113][法]米海伊尔·戴尔玛斯-马蒂.刑事政策的主要体系[M].卢建平,译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[114][美]乔治·P·弗莱彻.刑法的基本概念[M].王世洲,主译与校对.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[115][美]保罗·H·罗宾逊.刑法的结构与功能[M].何秉松,王桂萍,译.北京:中国民主法制出版社,2005.
[116][美]道格拉斯·N·胡萨克,刑法哲学[M].谢望原,等,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.
[117][美]伯尔曼.法律与革命:西方法律传统的形成[M].贺卫方,等,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993.
[118][美]埃里克·方纳.美国自由的故事[M].王希,译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[119][日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂,1980.
[120][日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986.
[121][日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992.
[122][日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂,2007.
[123][日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂.1975.
[124][日]西原春夫.交通事故と信頼原則[M].東京:成文堂.1971.
[125][日]井上祐司.行為無価値と過失犯論[M].東京:成文堂.1977.
[126][日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004.
[127][日]井上祐司.因果関係と刑事過失[M].東京:成文堂,1979.
[128][日]中山研一,米田漛邦.火災と刑事責任——管理者の過失処罰を中心に[M].東京:成文堂,1993.
[129][日]甲斐克則.責任原理と過失犯論[M].東京:成文堂,2005.
[130][日]川崎友己.企業の刑事責任[M].東京:成文堂,2004.
[131][日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994.
[132][日]前田雅英.刑法の基礎[M].東京:有斐閣,1994.
[133][日]藤木英雄.刑法講義[M].東京:弘文堂,1981.
[134][日]内藤謙.刑法講義総論(上)[M].東京:有斐閣,1984.
[135][日]山口厚.刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,2004.
[136][日]曽根威彦．刑法の重要問題(総論)第2版[M].東京:成文堂,2005.
[137][日]平野龍一.刑法の基礎[M].東京:東京大学出版会,1978.
[138][日]中山研一.刑法の基本思想(補増版)[M].東京:成文堂,2003.
[139][日]宮澤浩一．刑法の思想と理論[M].東京:成文堂,1976.
[140][日]米田漛邦.機能的刑法と過失[M].東京:成文堂,1994.
[141][日]木田純一.戦後民主主義と刑法学[M].東京:一粒社,1978.
[142][日]足立昌勝．国家刑罰権力と近代刑法の原点[M].東京:白順社,1993.
[143][日]原田保.刑法における超個人的法益の保護[M].東京:成文堂,1991.
[144][日]関哲夫.刑法解釈の研究[M].東京:成文堂,2006.
[145][日]龍岡資久.刑法における論理の思想[M].東京:東京布井出版社,1981.
[146][日]板倉宏.現代社会と新刑法理論[M].東京:勁草書房，1980.
[147][日]石堂功卓.現代社会と刑事法学[M].東京:成文堂,2004.
[148][日]山口厚.危険犯の研究[M].東京:東京大学出版会,1982.
[149][日]斎野彦弥．故意概念の再構成[M].東京:有斐閣,1995.
[150][日]松原久利.違法性の錯誤と違法性の意識の可能性[M].東京:成文堂,2006.
[151][徳]ブインフリード·ハッセマー.機能的刑法と過失[M].堀内捷三,編訳.東京:成文堂,1989.
[152][徳]アルトウール·カウフマン.転換期の刑法哲学(第2版)[M].上田健二,監訳.東京:成文堂,1999.
[153][日]伊东研祐.现代社会中危险犯的新类型[C]//危险犯与危险概念:二十世纪第四次(总第十次)中日刑事法学术研讨会论文集.长春:2005:138-149.
[154][德]京特·雅各布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[C]//王世洲.我的一点家当:王世洲刑事法译文集.北京:中国法制出版社,2006:220-243.
[155]张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995.
[156]冯英菊.期待可能性的理论与实践[D].北京:中国人民大学法学院,2004.
[157]付立庆.主观违法要素理论——以目的犯为中心的展开[D].北京:北京大学法学院,2005.
[158]林亚刚.德、日刑法犯罪过失学说介评[J].法学评论,2000(2):139-146.
[159]林亚刚.试论德、日刑法中犯罪过失在犯罪论体系中的地位[J].国家检察官学院学报,2000(2):34-38.
[160]刘志伟.海峡两岸犯罪过失中“应当预见”问题的比较研究[J].河北法学,1996(2):12-16.
[161]赵秉志,刘志伟.犯罪过失理论若干争议问题研究[J].法学家,2000(5):28-47.
[162]胡鹰.过失犯理论的变迁与发展[J].法律科学,1993(4):60-66.
[163]胡鹰.关于过失犯的若干基本问题[J].法学评论,1993(6):20-25.
[164]陆飚,胡鹰.试论过失理论的变迁与发展[J].法学评论,1995(2):25-34.
[165]韩玉胜,沈玉忠.监督过失论略[J].法学论坛,2007(1):42-51.
[166]钊作俊.试论日德刑法理论中的注意义务[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002(7):47-51.
[167]张爱艳.论注意义务阻却事由[J].政法论丛,2008(4):26-31.
[168]顾肖荣.我国刑法中业务上过失犯罪的特征[J].法学,1986(4):12-16.
[169]刘期湘,周园.论英美刑法注意义务的理论嬗变[J].长沙理工大学学报(社会科学版),2008(3):59-62.
[170]谢雄伟,黄旭巍.过失紧急避险的新思考[J].河北法学,2006(7):97-100.
[171]张明楷.德、日刑法中的过失[J].法学家,1992(4):88-92.
[172]周其华.关于刑法条文规定的过失犯罪的认定[J].国家检察官学院学报,2003(10):1-6.
[173]欧阳梓华.重大环境污染事故罪犯罪主观方面之严格责任批判[J].湖南财经高等专科学校学报,2004(10):81-83.
[174]谢治东.环境犯罪的惩治与传统刑事归责原则的创新[J].环境污染与防治,2006(11):841-844.
[175]张波.刑法学的若干基本理论探讨——对张明楷教授的若干观点的商榷[J].现代法学,2004(12):43-50.
[176]方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[J].法学评论,2000(2):139-146.
[178]徐卫东,李洁,等.刑法谦抑在中国——四校刑法学高层论坛[J].当代法学,2007(1):3-23.
[179][德]乌尔斯·金德霍伊泽尔.安全刑法:风险社会的刑法危险[J].刘国良,编译.马克思主义与现实,2005(3):38-41.
[180][日]日下和人.過失における予見可能性と精神弛緩——重過失概念を手がかりにして[J].早稲田法学会誌(58巻1号),2007:157-189.
[181][日]小坂亮.抽象的危険犯における危険概念とその判断形式[J].早稲田法学会誌(58巻1号),2007:191-248.
[182][日]山中敬一.犯罪論のおける「危険予測」の二元的構想[J].関西大学法学論集(第56巻第5、6合併号），2007:175-194.
[183][徳]トーマス·リヒター.象徴的刑法とそれがもたらすもの——ドイツの議論状況[J].中空壽雅，訳.比較法学(第39巻第3号),2006:163-180.
[184]毒油毒米曾严重危害日本人[N].环球时报,2008-9-26(13). I.电子文献
[185]日本毒奶粉事件绵延50年[N/OL].国际先驱导报,2008-10-09(7),[2009-03-30].http://xqdb.blog.sohu.com/ 101566810.html.
[186]2008年全国机动车和驾驶人统计[EB/OL] .( 2009-01-04 )
[2009-03-30].http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n1282/n3553/1770193.html.
[187]2008年全国道路交通事故情况[EB/OL] .( 2009-01-04 )[2009-03-30]. http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n1282/n3553/1770249.html.
[188]“撞了不白撞”规定细化了[EB/OL].(2008-05-01)[2009-03-30].http://www.szqcw.com/article/2008/0501/article_7552.html.
[189]环保总局通报北江镉污染等6起重大环境事件[EB/OL].(2006-02-06)[2009-3-30]. http://news.ifeng.com/phoenixtv/83881742083031040/20060206/741504.shtml.
[190]湖南100万人受职业病威胁矽肺病发病居全国第一[EB/OL].(2006-02-06)[2009-3-30].http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-10-23/0956974721s.shtml.
[191]辽宁葫芦岛矿工患矽肺病人数不断增加[EB/OL].(2004-07-05)[2009-03-30].http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2004-07-05/16152996085s.shtml.
②[日]甲斐克则.过失犯的基础理论[C]//冯军,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:1.
①张志辉.理性地对待犯罪[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:60.
①黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:17-20.
②[日]大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏,译.北京:法律出版社,2000:32-34.
①[日]北川佳世子.交通事故和过失论[C]//黎宏,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:66-67.
②日本毒奶粉事件绵延50年[N/OL].国际先驱导报,2008-10-09(7),[2009-03-30]. http://xqdb.blog.sohu.com/101566810.html.
③[日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:257-258.
④毒油毒米曾严重危害日本人[N].环球时报,2008-9-26(13).
⑤[日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:253-255.
①[日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:252-268.
②[日]大塚裕史.企业灾害和过失论[C]//黎宏,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:88-93.
③[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂,2007:1.
④[日]大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏,译.北京:法律出版社,2000:32-34.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:34.
②[日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂,1980:197.
①黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:170.
①[日]北川佳世子.交通事故和过失论[C]//黎宏,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:66-68.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:30.
③李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:31.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:296-297.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:138.
②[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:31-37.
①我国台湾学者译为客观归责理论,被我国大陆学者采用,为论述的方便,笔者下文将采用客观归责理论的译法.
②[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:37-39.
③[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:114-115.
④[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:108.
①许玉秀.主观与客观之间——主观理论与客观归责[M].北京:法律出版社,2008:197.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:115.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:139-140.
②[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:2.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:182-188.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(上)[M].北京:法律出版社,1995:105.
②[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:188-189.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:189-191.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(上)[M].北京:法律出版社,1995:233-234.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:31-33.
③[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:194-196.
④[日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂,1980:22-23.
①黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:179.
①黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:179.
②黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:179.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:28-36.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:121.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:121-123.
②张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:37.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:6-9.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:99-100.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:152-153.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:35.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:4-5.
①[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:207.
②[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:218.
③[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:207.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:5-7
②[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:207-208.
③[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:7.
④[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:207-208.
①[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:210.
②[日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂,1980:195-197.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:169.
①[日]甲斐克則.責任原理と過失犯論[M].東京:成文堂,2005:97-98.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:170-172.
②林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:85.
③林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:86.
①[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:151.
②[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:170.
③林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:88-89.
①[日]甲斐克则.过失犯的基础理论[C]//冯军,译.高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:5-6.
②[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:153.
①[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂,2007:115-116.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:126.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:315-316.
②[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:316-318.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:318-320.
②[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:321-322.
①[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:106-107.
①[日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004:107-110.
①[日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂.1975:20-24.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:134-136.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:233.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:105.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:253.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:33.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:308-309.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:33-34.
②[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂.2007:372.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:295-302.
①林亚刚.试论德、日刑法中犯罪过失在犯罪论体系中的地位[J].国家检察官学院学报,2000,8(1):36.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:302-306.
①[日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:256-274.
②林亚刚.德、日刑法犯罪过失学说介评[J].法学评论,2000(2):146.
③[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:211.
①[日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂高文社,1980:198-201.
②[日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂,1980:34.
③[日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂,2007:228.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:231.
②[日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂,1980:30-37.
③[日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂,1980:30-41.
①[日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994:302-306.
①林亚刚.试论德、日刑法中犯罪过失在犯罪论体系中的地位[J].国家检察官学院学报,2000,8(1):37.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:71.
①林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:52-53.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:198.
①[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:4-7.
①[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:16.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:53.
③[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:7.
①[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:2-5.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:30-31.
①林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:48.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:32-34.
③李洁.三大法系犯罪构成论体系性特征比较研究[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论(第2卷).北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:424.
①李洁.三大法系犯罪构成论体系性特征比较研究[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论(第2卷).北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:424-425.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:59.
③张明楷.外国刑法纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999:76-77.
①林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:50.
②林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000,48-49.
③方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:63.
①李立众.犯罪成立理论研究:一个域外方向的尝试[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:125.
②李洁.三大法系犯罪构成论体系性特征比较研究[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论(第2卷).北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:427.
③[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:15.
①[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:29.
②[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:38.
③[日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004:16.
①张明楷.外国刑法纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999:40-47.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:31-32.
①[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:43.
②[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:70-72.
①[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:25.
②林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:51.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:18-22.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:10.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:36.
②张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:215.
③黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:141.
④黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:142.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:215-216.
②黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:142.
③张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:216.
①[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:78.
②[美]伯尔曼.法律与革命:西方法律传统的形成[M].贺卫方,等,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993:13.
③任喜容.伦理刑法及其终结[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:3.
④黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:141.
①张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:216.
②黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:169.张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995:224-225.
①[日]中山研一,米田漛邦.火災と刑事責任[M].東京:成文堂,1993:121-138.
②方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:240-241.
①[日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992:251.
②赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:64-66.
③方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:241.
①赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:68.
②[德]耶赛克,魏根特.德国刑法教科书(总论)[M].徐久生,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2001:311.
①赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:72-73.
②赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:73-74.
③赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:74.
④方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:248-249.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:250.
①李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:33.
①王扬,丁芝华.客观归责理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006:27.
②李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999:33-34.
①赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:77-78.
①王扬,丁芝华.客观归责理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006:128.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:49.
③[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:50.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:51-52.
②赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:8-13.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:56-57.
②[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:52.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:54.赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:112-113.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:54.赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:116.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:50-51.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:58-59.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:70-71.
②赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:130.
③[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:75.
④赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:134-135.
①[日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986:78-81.
①赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007:150-162.
①2008年全国机动车和驾驶人统计[EB/OL].(2009-01-04)[2009-03-30]. http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n1282/n3553/1770193.html.
①2008年全国道路交通事故情况[EB/OL].(2009-01-04)[2009-03-30].http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n1282/ n3553/1770249.html.
②苏惠渔.现实与理念之间——过失交通犯罪研究[C]//高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:50.
③“撞了不白撞”规定细化了[EB/OL].(2008-05-01)[2009-03-30]. http://www.szqcw.com/article/2008/0501/article_7552.html.
①苏惠渔.现实与理念之间——过失交通犯罪研究[C]//高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集.北京:法律出版社,2002:57-58.
①方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:3-4.
②方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006(10):142.
①方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006(10):142.
②李立众,吴学斌.刑法新思潮:张明楷教授学术观点探究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008:98-115.
③方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2006(10):142.
①方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[C]//陈兴良.刑事法评论.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006(10):110.
②黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004:183.
①[日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:156-157.
①[日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:125.
①林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000:159.
①环保总局通报北江镉污染等6起重大环境事件[EB/OL].(2006-02-06)[2009-3-30]. http://news.ifeng.com/phoenixtv/83881742083031040/20060206/741504.shtml.
②湖南100万人受职业病威胁矽肺病发病居全国第一[EB/OL].(2006-02-06)[2009-3-30]. http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-10-23/0956974721s.shtml.
①辽宁葫芦岛矿工患矽肺病人数不断增加[EB/OL].(2004-07-05)[2009-03-30]. http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2004- 07-05/16152996085s.shtml.
[1]高铭暄,赵秉志.过失犯罪的基础理论:二十一世纪首次(总第七次)中日刑事法学术讨论会论文集[C].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[2]林亚刚.犯罪过失研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000.
[3]黎宏.日本刑法精义[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004.
[4]李海东.日本刑事法学者(上)[M].北京:法律出版社,1995.
[5]李海东.日本刑事法学者(下)[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[6]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第2卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[7]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第5卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[8]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第6卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[9]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第7卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[10]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第10卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[11]陈兴良.刑事法评论(第14卷)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[12]蔡枢衡.中国刑法史[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2005.
[13]陈兴良.刑法哲学(第3版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[14]陈兴良.本体刑法学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[15]陈兴良.当代中国刑法新视界[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[16]陈兴良.刑法的价值构造[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[17]陈兴良.刑法的启蒙[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[18]陈兴良.刑法的人性基础(第2版)[M].北京:中国方正出版社,1999.
[19]陈兴良.刑法理念导读[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[20]陈兴良.走向哲学的刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[21]陈瑞华.刑事诉讼中的中国模式[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[22]储槐植.刑事一体化[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[23]崔永东.中西法律文化比较[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[24]邓子滨.刑事法中的推定[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003.
[25]范德繁.犯罪实行行为论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2005.
[26]方泉.犯罪论体系的演变:自“科学技术世纪”至“风险技术社会”的一种叙述和解读[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008.
[27]冯军.比较刑法研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[28]冯军,李春雷.外国刑法学概论[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2004.
[29]冯亚东.理性主义与刑法模式[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[30]韩忠谟.刑法原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[31]何勤华.西方法学家列传[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[32]柯耀程.变动中的刑法思想[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[33]赖早兴.刑法平等论[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[34]李洁.论罪刑法定的实现[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2006.
[35]李洁.犯罪既遂形态研究[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1999.
[36]李立众.犯罪成立理论研究:一个域外方向的尝试[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[37]李立众,吴学斌.刑法新思潮:张明楷教授学术观点探究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[38]李晓明.行政刑法学导论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[39]李文伟.法人刑事责任比较研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006.
[40]李兰英.间接故意研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006.
[41]梁根林.刑事法网:扩张与限缩[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[42]梁治平.寻求自然秩序中的和谐[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[43]林维.刑法解释的权力分析[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[44]刘树德.宪政维度的刑法新思考[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[45]刘艳红.开放的犯罪构成要件理论研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[46]刘远.刑事法哲学初论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004.
[47]刘远.刑法本体论及其展开[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007.
[48]刘明祥.错误论[M].北京:法律出版社,成文堂联合出版,1998.
[49]卢建平.刑事政策学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[50]马克昌.犯罪通论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000.
[51]马克昌.刑罚通论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2002.
[52]马跃.美国刑事司法制度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[53]孟庆华.犯罪构成适用:重点疑点难点问题判解研究[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2006.
[54]邱兴隆.关于惩罚的哲学——刑罚根据论[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[55]邱兴隆.刑罚理性评论——刑罚的正当性反思[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[56]曲新久.刑法的精神与范畴(2003年修订版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[57]任喜容.伦理刑法及其终结[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
[58]任喜容.刑官的世界——中国法律人职业化的历史透视[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[59]史卫忠.行为犯研究[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2002.
[60]苏力.法治及其本土资源[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996.
[61]苏惠渔,孙万怀.论国家刑权力[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[62]童德华.刑法中的期待可能性论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[63]童德华.规范刑法原理[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005.
[64]王晨.刑事责任的一般理论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,1999.
[65]王扬,丁芝华.客观归责理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[66]王志远.犯罪成立理论原理——前序性研究[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2005.
[67]文海林.刑法科学主义初论[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[68]吴振兴.罪数形态论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1999.
[69]吴振兴.犯罪形态研究精要[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[70]谢望原.欧陆刑罚制度与刑罚价值原理[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004.
[71]许玉秀.当代刑法思潮[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2005.
[72]许玉秀.主观与客观之间——主观理论与客观归责[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[73]徐岱.中国刑法近代化论纲[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2003.
[74]徐国栋.民法典与民法哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[75]翟中东.犯罪控制——动态平衡论的见解[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[76]张明楷.法益初论(2003年修订版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[77]张明楷.外国刑法纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999.
[78]张明楷.刑法的基本立场[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2003.
[79]张明楷.刑法学(第2版)[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[80]张明楷.刑法分则的解释原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[81]张明楷.刑法格言的展开[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[82]张旭.减免刑事责任理论比较研究[M].长春:长春出版社,1994.
[83]张旭.跨国犯罪的惩治与防范——现状、问题与应对[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2008.
[84]张智辉.理性地对待犯罪[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[85]张智辉.刑事责任通论[M].北京:警官教育出版社,1995.
[86]张智辉.刑事责任比较研究[M].台北:五南图书出版公司,1996.
[87]张国军.刑庭二十八年[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社,2007.
[88]赵秉志.犯罪总论问题探索[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[89]赵秉志.刑法基础理论探索[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[90]赵秉志.刑法评论(第6卷)[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[91]赵秉志.刑事责任专题整理[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007.
[92]赵秉志,魏昌东.刑法哲学专题整理[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2007.
[93]赵秉志.中国刑法案例与学理研究(第1卷)[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[94]赵慧.刑法上的信赖原则研究[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2007.
[95]周光权.刑法学的向度[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[96]周少华.刑法理性与规范技术——刑法功能的发生机理[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2007.
[97][日]日本刑法典[M].张明楷,译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[98][日]川岛武宜.现代化与法[M].申政武,等,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[99][日]泷川幸辰.犯罪论序说[M].王泰,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[100][日]曾根威彦.刑法学基础[M].黎宏,等,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[101][日]西原春夫.犯罪实行行为论[M].戴波,江溯,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[102][日]西原春夫.刑法的根据与哲学[M].顾肖荣,等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[103][日]大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏,译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[104][日]西田典之.日本刑法总论[M].刘明祥,王昭武,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[105][日]小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].王泰,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.
[106][日]山本佑司.最高裁物语:日本司法50年[M].孙占坤,祁玫,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[107][日]六本佳平.日本法与日本社会[M].刘银良,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[108][德]克劳斯·罗克辛.德国刑法学总论(第1卷)——犯罪原理的基础构造[M].王世洲,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[109][德]耶赛克,魏根特.德国刑法教科书(总论)[M].徐久生,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2001.
[110][德]恩施特·贝林.构成要件理论[M].王安异,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[111][德]吕格恩特·雅科布斯.行为责任刑法——机能性描述[M].冯军,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[112][德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[113][法]米海伊尔·戴尔玛斯-马蒂.刑事政策的主要体系[M].卢建平,译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[114][美]乔治·P·弗莱彻.刑法的基本概念[M].王世洲,主译与校对.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[115][美]保罗·H·罗宾逊.刑法的结构与功能[M].何秉松,王桂萍,译.北京:中国民主法制出版社,2005.
[116][美]道格拉斯·N·胡萨克,刑法哲学[M].谢望原,等,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.
[117][美]伯尔曼.法律与革命:西方法律传统的形成[M].贺卫方,等,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993.
[118][美]埃里克·方纳.美国自由的故事[M].王希,译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[119][日]藤木英雄.過失犯の理論[M].東京:有信堂,1980.
[120][日]土本武司.過失犯の研究[M].東京:成文堂,1986.
[121][日]花井哲也.過失犯の基本構造[M].東京:信山社,1992.
[122][日]古川伸彦.刑事過失論序説[M].東京:成文堂,2007.
[123][日]西原春夫.交通事故と過失の認定[M].東京:成文堂.1975.
[124][日]西原春夫.交通事故と信頼原則[M].東京:成文堂.1971.
[125][日]井上祐司.行為無価値と過失犯論[M].東京:成文堂.1977.
[126][日]松宫孝明.過失論の現代的課題[M].東京:成文堂,2004.
[127][日]井上祐司.因果関係と刑事過失[M].東京:成文堂,1979.
[128][日]中山研一,米田漛邦.火災と刑事責任——管理者の過失処罰を中心に[M].東京:成文堂,1993.
[129][日]甲斐克則.責任原理と過失犯論[M].東京:成文堂,2005.
[130][日]川崎友己.企業の刑事責任[M].東京:成文堂,2004.
[131][日]西田典之,山口厚,佐伯仁志.判例刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,1994.
[132][日]前田雅英.刑法の基礎[M].東京:有斐閣,1994.
[133][日]藤木英雄.刑法講義[M].東京:弘文堂,1981.
[134][日]内藤謙.刑法講義総論(上)[M].東京:有斐閣,1984.
[135][日]山口厚.刑法総論[M].東京:有斐阁,2004.
[136][日]曽根威彦．刑法の重要問題(総論)第2版[M].東京:成文堂,2005.
[137][日]平野龍一.刑法の基礎[M].東京:東京大学出版会,1978.
[138][日]中山研一.刑法の基本思想(補増版)[M].東京:成文堂,2003.
[139][日]宮澤浩一．刑法の思想と理論[M].東京:成文堂,1976.
[140][日]米田漛邦.機能的刑法と過失[M].東京:成文堂,1994.
[141][日]木田純一.戦後民主主義と刑法学[M].東京:一粒社,1978.
[142][日]足立昌勝．国家刑罰権力と近代刑法の原点[M].東京:白順社,1993.
[143][日]原田保.刑法における超個人的法益の保護[M].東京:成文堂,1991.
[144][日]関哲夫.刑法解釈の研究[M].東京:成文堂,2006.
[145][日]龍岡資久.刑法における論理の思想[M].東京:東京布井出版社,1981.
[146][日]板倉宏.現代社会と新刑法理論[M].東京:勁草書房，1980.
[147][日]石堂功卓.現代社会と刑事法学[M].東京:成文堂,2004.
[148][日]山口厚.危険犯の研究[M].東京:東京大学出版会,1982.
[149][日]斎野彦弥．故意概念の再構成[M].東京:有斐閣,1995.
[150][日]松原久利.違法性の錯誤と違法性の意識の可能性[M].東京:成文堂,2006.
[151][徳]ブインフリード·ハッセマー.機能的刑法と過失[M].堀内捷三,編訳.東京:成文堂,1989.
[152][徳]アルトウール·カウフマン.転換期の刑法哲学(第2版)[M].上田健二,監訳.東京:成文堂,1999.
[153][日]伊东研祐.现代社会中危险犯的新类型[C]//危险犯与危险概念:二十世纪第四次(总第十次)中日刑事法学术研讨会论文集.长春:2005:138-149.
[154][德]京特·雅各布斯.刑法保护什么:法益还是规范适用?[C]//王世洲.我的一点家当:王世洲刑事法译文集.北京:中国法制出版社,2006:220-243.
[155]张凌.论过失犯罪中的监督过失责任[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,1995.
[156]冯英菊.期待可能性的理论与实践[D].北京:中国人民大学法学院,2004.
[157]付立庆.主观违法要素理论——以目的犯为中心的展开[D].北京:北京大学法学院,2005.
[158]林亚刚.德、日刑法犯罪过失学说介评[J].法学评论,2000(2):139-146.
[159]林亚刚.试论德、日刑法中犯罪过失在犯罪论体系中的地位[J].国家检察官学院学报,2000(2):34-38.
[160]刘志伟.海峡两岸犯罪过失中“应当预见”问题的比较研究[J].河北法学,1996(2):12-16.
[161]赵秉志,刘志伟.犯罪过失理论若干争议问题研究[J].法学家,2000(5):28-47.
[162]胡鹰.过失犯理论的变迁与发展[J].法律科学,1993(4):60-66.
[163]胡鹰.关于过失犯的若干基本问题[J].法学评论,1993(6):20-25.
[164]陆飚,胡鹰.试论过失理论的变迁与发展[J].法学评论,1995(2):25-34.
[165]韩玉胜,沈玉忠.监督过失论略[J].法学论坛,2007(1):42-51.
[166]钊作俊.试论日德刑法理论中的注意义务[J].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002(7):47-51.
[167]张爱艳.论注意义务阻却事由[J].政法论丛,2008(4):26-31.
[168]顾肖荣.我国刑法中业务上过失犯罪的特征[J].法学,1986(4):12-16.
[169]刘期湘,周园.论英美刑法注意义务的理论嬗变[J].长沙理工大学学报(社会科学版),2008(3):59-62.
[170]谢雄伟,黄旭巍.过失紧急避险的新思考[J].河北法学,2006(7):97-100.
[171]张明楷.德、日刑法中的过失[J].法学家,1992(4):88-92.
[172]周其华.关于刑法条文规定的过失犯罪的认定[J].国家检察官学院学报,2003(10):1-6.
[173]欧阳梓华.重大环境污染事故罪犯罪主观方面之严格责任批判[J].湖南财经高等专科学校学报,2004(10):81-83.
[174]谢治东.环境犯罪的惩治与传统刑事归责原则的创新[J].环境污染与防治,2006(11):841-844.
[175]张波.刑法学的若干基本理论探讨——对张明楷教授的若干观点的商榷[J].现代法学,2004(12):43-50.
[176]方鹏.纠缠于法益与社会危害性之间[J].法学评论,2000(2):139-146.
[178]徐卫东,李洁,等.刑法谦抑在中国——四校刑法学高层论坛[J].当代法学,2007(1):3-23.
[179][德]乌尔斯·金德霍伊泽尔.安全刑法:风险社会的刑法危险[J].刘国良,编译.马克思主义与现实,2005(3):38-41.
[180][日]日下和人.過失における予見可能性と精神弛緩——重過失概念を手がかりにして[J].早稲田法学会誌(58巻1号),2007:157-189.
[181][日]小坂亮.抽象的危険犯における危険概念とその判断形式[J].早稲田法学会誌(58巻1号),2007:191-248.
[182][日]山中敬一.犯罪論のおける「危険予測」の二元的構想[J].関西大学法学論集(第56巻第5、6合併号），2007:175-194.
[183][徳]トーマス·リヒター.象徴的刑法とそれがもたらすもの——ドイツの議論状況[J].中空壽雅，訳.比較法学(第39巻第3号),2006:163-180.
[184]毒油毒米曾严重危害日本人[N].环球时报,2008-9-26(13). I.电子文献
[185]日本毒奶粉事件绵延50年[N/OL].国际先驱导报,2008-10-09(7),[2009-03-30].http://xqdb.blog.sohu.com/ 101566810.html.
[186]2008年全国机动车和驾驶人统计[EB/OL] .( 2009-01-04 )
[2009-03-30].http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n1282/n3553/1770193.html.
[187]2008年全国道路交通事故情况[EB/OL] .( 2009-01-04 )[2009-03-30]. http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n1282/n3553/1770249.html.
[188]“撞了不白撞”规定细化了[EB/OL].(2008-05-01)[2009-03-30].http://www.szqcw.com/article/2008/0501/article_7552.html.
[189]环保总局通报北江镉污染等6起重大环境事件[EB/OL].(2006-02-06)[2009-3-30]. http://news.ifeng.com/phoenixtv/83881742083031040/20060206/741504.shtml.
[190]湖南100万人受职业病威胁矽肺病发病居全国第一[EB/OL].(2006-02-06)[2009-3-30].http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-10-23/0956974721s.shtml.
[191]辽宁葫芦岛矿工患矽肺病人数不断增加[EB/OL].(2004-07-05)[2009-03-30].http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2004-07-05/16152996085s.shtml.