Research Of Debate Between Handlungsunwert And Erfolgsunwert

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a detailed analysis of the various aspects of debate between Handlungsunwert and Erfolgsunwert.The main research methods are literature study method,which is to study and analyze the views of the representatives of Handlungsunwert and Erfolgsunwert.This paper holds that: First,Handlungsunwert and Erfolgsunwert all agree that the purpose of criminal law is to protect legal interests.The key lies in how to protect the legal interest more effectively.The meaning of Dualism is not clear,sometimes refers to the violation of norms and infringement of legal interests,and sometimes refers to legal interest infringement risk and actual legal interest violation.The violation of the norms of behavior is ultimately determined by the infringement of legal interests,so the contradiction between the violation of legal norms and legal interests can be eliminated.Second,the debate between Erfolgsunwert and Dualism don't correspond the debate between the behavior of utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.Erfolgsunwert only correspond the atypical form of behavioral utilitarianism—objective behavior utilitarianism.It misunderstands the meaning of good and proper,leading to a series of erroneous views.The typical form of behavioral utilitarianism--subjective behavior utilitarianism have no difference with rational rule utilitarianism.The relationship between them is similar to the relationship between infringement of legal interests and violation of norms.Third,expected results meaning dangerous,is the core of illegal judgment.Criminal law prohibits dangerous acts rather than results.The regulation of criminal law is a person's behavior,to a specific person(considering the age,mental factors)in a particular situation(what happened)how to conduct a specific expectations and requirements.Such expectations and demands must be pointed out in the behavior,but can't wait for the behavior and then according to the objective results in turn to tell how the behavior of the perpetrator,otherwise it will lose the meaning of guidance.The expectation is that it is not expected to cause damage to the interests of the law or cause only minimal damage(the threat of legal interest is minimized).Illegal judgment is to measure the behavior of the specific person and the expected behavior of the threat of legal interests.The bigger the gap,the heavier punishment.Fourth,the subjective elements,whether it belongs to the illegal elements or the responsibility elements,can realize the type and individualization of the crime.Illegality judgment will not cause the confusion of the law and the responsibility,and will not lead to subjective imputation.Considering the subjective elements in the stage of illegality,it can properly explain the justifiable defense.The logic of dealing with imaginary defense and accidental defense reflects the irrationality of Erfolgsunwert.On the one hand,it is believed that the unexpected bad result can't be attributed to the actor,but on the other hand,the unexpected good result is attributed to the actor.Fifth,in the moment,the substantive discussion of the position has been turned to dangerous judgment.Dangerous judgment must be in the act.The difference between the objective danger theory and the concrete danger theory and the abstract danger theory lies in the material and method for judging.There is a certain purpose in judging the danger.The purpose is to measure the deviation of the behavior of an actor from the expectation of the law.The concrete danger and the abstract danger theory always focus on this goal.The objective danger theory is to make a God's existence,which is not beneficial to the goal,from the goal.