Quality Author Certification Recruitment
In terms of the criteria for judging the illegality of criminal law, there are two mainstream theories in the academic circles: the avalue theory of behavior and the avalue theory of results. These two theories have been deeply debated in multiple dimensions, and each of them attempts to provide a more reasonable and fair standard for judging criminal law. It is worth noting, however, that it is difficult to fully encompass the complexity and pluralism of criminal law by relying on any one theory alone. Therefore, this article aims to ** the intrinsic connection and difference between the axiology of behavior and the avalue of results, and how to understand and apply criminal law more comprehensively through their combination.
At its core, the axiology of behavior emphasizes the illegality or moral defects of the act itself. According to this theory, the judgment of illegality is not only based on the result of the act, but focuses on whether the act itself violates legal norms or social ethics. According to this view, even if an act does not result in a direct infringement of legal interests, it should be considered illegal as long as it violates established norms of conduct. For example, even if certain preparatory or attempted acts do not result in actual harm or loss, they should be considered illegal because of their potential danger and the nature of violating legal norms. This view emphasizes the subjective aspect of behavior and moral responsibility, and tries to guide and restrain people's behavior through legal regulation, so as to achieve the maintenance of social order and moral norms.
Conversely, consequential axiology focuses on the actual consequences of actions. This doctrine holds that the wrongfulness of an act should be based on the specific harm or loss it causes. In other words, an act should only be found to be illegal if it actually infringes on legal interests, such as causing personal injury, property damage or other forms of specific harm. This view argues that the purpose of law is to protect specific legal interests, not to simply bind the act itself. The axiology of results pays more attention to objective facts and practical consequences, emphasizing the material impact and social harm of behavior.
Although there is a significant difference between the theory of action avalue and the theory of result avalue in theory, there is a complementary relationship between them in practical legal application. On the one hand, the axiology of behavior emphasizes the illegality of the act itself, which helps to regulate and punish those behaviors that are potentially dangerous despite not causing actual harm. For example, preparatory and attempted offences are punishable in many legal systems, reflecting the awareness and prevention of the danger of the act itself. On the other hand, the application of the result-free theory helps to ensure the fairness and rationality of criminal law. Punishment is imposed on perpetrators only when an act has caused actual harm or damage, which is in line with the basic principle of "impunity" in criminal law.
The mere fact that the result is worthless is not enough to fully evaluate the illegality of an act. For example, in some cases, an act may not directly result in a specific damage to legal interests, but it also deserves attention and punishment because it violates important social norms or ethical standards. In this case, it is impossible to make a comprehensive judgment based on the axiology of results alone. On the other hand, if an act has caused damage to legal interests, it may not constitute an illegal act under certain circumstances, such as justifiable defense or emergency avoidance. In this case, it is impossible to make a fair evaluation by relying solely on the axiology of behavior.
The ideal criminal law system should be one in which the axiology of behavior and the avalue of results complement each other. When evaluating the illegality of an act, it is first necessary to consider whether the act violates a clear legal norm. If so, then further consideration needs to be given to whether the breach of the norm has resulted in an actual infringement of legal interests or created a significant risk. This comprehensive evaluation method is not only based on the consequences of the behavior, but also on the moral and legal implications of the behavior itself, so as to achieve the effective integration of the behavior avalue theory and the result avalue theory.
Behavioral axiology and outcome axiology have their own emphases and application areas, but they are not independent or opposed to each other. In fact, in the practical application of criminal law, it is usually necessary to combine these two theories for a more comprehensive and in-depth evaluation. Only by comprehensively considering the normative violation and infringement of legal interests can a more reasonable and comprehensive judgment be made. This not only contributes to a better understanding and application of criminal law, but is also key to achieving legal fairness and efficiency.