对“公共安全”中“安全”的目的论限缩之反驳

Refutation of the Teleological Restriction on the Meaning of “Safety” in “Public Safety”

摘要: 目的论限缩要求从法条文义、历史上的立法者的目的以及整体的法规范中推导出某法条之规范目的，并基于这一规范目的将本不应纳入其涵摄范围的事物排除在外。对刑法中“公共安全”——尤其是“安全”的理解，历来存有争议。有学者主张“财产安全否定说”，即单纯的财产安全并非公共安全，只有在侵害财产安全的同时，对人身安全造成危险，才可能构成危害公共的犯罪。在实质上，这一观点已将单纯的财产安全排除在财产安全的范畴之外，可能导致多种法律漏洞。为解决这一问题，又有学者提出“公众生活的平稳与安宁说，认为应当将“公众生活的平稳与安宁”纳入“公共安全”之范畴。但由于财产安全否定说及伴随它而产生的公众生活的平稳与安宁说，不仅与法条文义相悖，还破坏了刑法分则第二章、乃至整个刑法体系的完整性，均不具有合理性。

Abstract: The teleological restriction requires deriving the normative purpose of a specific provision from the literal interpretation of legal texts, the historical purpose of the legislator, and the overall legal framework. Based on this normative purpose, it excludes things that should not be included within its scope. There has been a long-standing controversy regarding the understanding of “safety” in the context of “public safety,” particularly in criminal law. Some scholars advocate for the “denial of property security” theory, which argues that pure property security is not synonymous with public safety. According to this theory, only when endangering property security poses a risk to personal safety can it constitute a crime against public safety. Essentially, this viewpoint excludes pure property security from the category of public safety, potentially leading to various legal loopholes. To solve this problem, other scholars propose the “stability and tranquility of public life” theory, suggesting that “the stability and tranquility of public life” should be included within the concept of “public safety”. However, both the denial of property security theory and the accompanying stability and tranquility of public life theory contradict the literal interpretation of legal texts and undermine the integrity of Chapter 2, and even the entire Criminal Code. Consequently, these theories lack rationality.