发生学与结构学视野下的犯罪构成

对应着主客体的对应关系，犯罪主体的构成要件地位应予肯定，且可通过“逻辑起点”、“必要要件”与“首要要件”来描述其犯罪构成地位。作为犯罪主体的实体内容，刑事责任能力是指实施犯罪行为并承受刑事责任的行为能力。作为一种“相对恶的意志自由能力”，刑事责任能力具有“相对恶的意志自由性”这一属性，且其本质是“刑法规范违反性能力”或“刑事违法性能力”，是由“犯罪能力”到“受刑能力”的“过程性能力”和“结构性能力”。刑事责任能力不仅是“犯罪构成主体要件的核心”即犯罪构成“逻辑起点”的“核心”，而且是刑罚论最基本的“主体性前提”。在四要件犯罪构成中，犯罪客体必要性是主客体对应的哲学结论，是“社会关系法”的当然结论，是犯罪客体解释力的当然结论。犯罪客体的分类与分层是两个不同的问题。犯罪客体可进行同类客体层面的分类和直接客体层面的分类:前者是发生在“国家法益的犯罪”、“社会法益的犯罪”和“个人法益的犯罪”内部；而后者可采用数量多寡、载体形式等标准进行。特别是复杂客体，应予以“手段性客体”与“目的性客体”或“原因性客体”与“结果性客体”的结构性把握。至于所谓“随机客体”等，是需予澄清的“伪客体”。由“总客体”到“同类客体”再到“直接客体”，是犯罪客体的内容分层；而由国家层面的犯罪客体到社会层面的犯罪客体再到个人层面的犯罪客体，是犯罪客体的社会结构分层。犯罪客体的分层对应着犯罪客体的结构性，映现着刑法分则体系的体系性及其完备性。 

The Composition of Crime under the Vision of Genetics and Structure

Corresponding to the corresponding relationship between subject and object, the status of the constituent elements of the criminal subject should be affirmed, and its criminal constituent status can be described as follows: the criminal subject is the “logical starting point” of the four-element composition of crime, thus the “necessary” and “first” requirement. As the substantive content of the criminal subject, the capacity for criminal responsibility refers to the capacity to commit criminal acts and bear criminal responsibility. As a kind of “relatively evil capacity for freedom of will”, the capacity for criminal responsibility has the attribute of “relatively evil freedom of will”, and its essence is “criminal norm-violating capacity” or “criminal law-violating capacity”, which is “procedural ability” and “structural ability” from “criminal ability” to “criminal ability”. The ability of criminal responsibility is not only the “core” of “the core of the main elements of crime”, that is, the “logical starting point” of crime, but also the most basic “subjective premise” of the theory of punishment. In the four-element composition of crime, the necessity of the criminal object is the philosophical conclusion corresponding to the subject and the object, thus the natural conclusion of the “social relations law”, and the natural conclusion of the explanatory power of the criminal object. The classification and stratification of criminal objects are two different issues. Criminal objects can be classified at the level of similar objects and at the level of direct objects: the former occurs within “crimes of national legal interests”, “crimes of social legal interests” and “crimes of personal legal interests”; while the latter can use the number and carrier form and other standards. In particular, complex objects should be structurally grasped as “means object” and “purpose object” or “cause object” and “result object”. As for the so-called “random objects”, they are “pseudo objects” that need to be clarified. From “total object” to “similar object” and then to “direct object”, it is the content stratification of criminal objects; while from the criminal object at the national level to the criminal object at the social level and then to the criminal object at the individual level, it is the criminal object. The social structure is stratified. The stratification of the criminal object corresponds to the structure of the criminal object, thus reflecting the systematicness and completeness of the criminal law system.