自动驾驶紧急避险的刑事责任分析

Analysis of Criminal Liability for Necessity in Autonomous Driving

摘要: 自动驾驶技术的规模化落地，使传统刑法理论中的“电车难题”从思想实验变为现实风险，有关自动驾驶场景下紧急避险的刑事责任认定，已成为刑法学必须回应的命题。其中，针对危险源的防御性紧急避险，因危险制造者的法益保护性降低，在符合法定要件时可阻却违法；针对无辜第三人的攻击性紧急避险，尤其是生命权冲突的极端场景，虽有驾驶员优先、数量功利主义为代表的生命权衡理论作为理论基础，但其违背了生命权不得作为紧急避险损害客体的刑法基本原则。基于此，本文认为自动驾驶算法预设的攻击性紧急避险行为，在构成要件层面符合故意杀人罪等罪名，且无法通过违法阻却事由出罪；结合自动驾驶的技术特性以及不同应用场景，可以分情况界定算法设计者、生产商、驾驶员的刑事责任边界，实现刑法法益保护的规范目的。

Abstract: The large-scale deployment of autonomous driving technology has transformed the “trolley problem”—a classic thought experiment in traditional criminal law theory—into a tangible real-world risk. Determining criminal liability for necessity in autonomous driving scenarios has thus become a core issue that criminal jurisprudence must address. Defensive necessity targeting the source of danger may negate wrongfulness when all statutory requirements are satisfied, given that the legal interests of the party who created the danger warrant a reduced level of legal protection. As for offensive necessity that inflicts harm on innocent third parties, especially in extreme scenarios involving conflicts of the right to life, life-weighting theories such as the driver-first principle and quantitative utilitarianism are often cited as theoretical support. However, such theories run counter to the fundamental criminal law principle that the right to life shall not be the object of damage in necessity, and cannot provide valid justificatory grounds for these necessity acts. On this basis, this paper argues that preprogrammed offensive necessity embedded in autonomous driving algorithms meets the constitutive elements of crimes including intentional homicide, and cannot be exculpated through any justification defense. Taking into account the technical characteristics of autonomous driving and the specifics of different scenarios, the boundaries of criminal liability for algorithm designers, manufacturers and drivers can be delineated on a case-by-case basis, so as to realize the normative purpose of criminal law in protecting legal interests.