Expected possibility - expected possibility

The possibility of expecting the perpetrator to commit a non-criminal act (lawful act). The expectability of such a lawful act is simply called Zumutbarkeit (German). Expectability is necessary to hold someone criminally liable, and today it is considered an element of responsibility along with criminal responsibility.

In the past, the understanding of criminal responsibility was premised on a concept called psychological responsibility theory, which interpreted the substance of responsibility as the psychological relationship (fact or possibility) of the perpetrator, and it was thought that responsibility could be affirmed if the perpetrator had the capacity to be held responsible, as well as the intention or negligence. However, in Germany, in a famous case called the Leinenfänger case (a carriage driver had requested his employer to exchange his wild horse for another one, but the employer did not comply with this request and threatened to fire him, so the driver was forced to follow the employer's orders to use the wild horse, but accidentally injured a passerby. Also known as the wild horse case), the Reich Court acquitted the driver in 1897 on the grounds that the driver could not be expected to disobey the employer's orders even if it meant losing his job. This decision prompted many leading criminal law scholars, including Reinhard Frank (1860-1934), to acknowledge that even if an act was intentionally or negligently performed by a person capable of taking responsibility, depending on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, the perpetrator may not be held responsible. Criminal responsibility was interpreted as requiring not only psychological elements, but also normative elements, such as the expectation that the perpetrator would act lawfully. In this context, normative responsibility theory, which holds that the essence of responsibility is the blameworthiness of the perpetrator and that this blameworthiness is determined by the expectation of lawful behavior, has come to dominate, replacing the previous psychological responsibility theory. In normative responsibility theory, expectability is the core of responsibility and is crucial in determining the existence and degree of responsibility. However, regarding expectability, particularly with regard to who should be used as the standard for determining this possibility, there is a dispute between the actor standard theory, the normal person (average person/ordinary person) standard theory, and the state standard theory. In any case, the theory of expectation, along with the theory of punitive illegality, is important in avoiding uniform and formal application of criminal law and in determining its specific appropriateness. In practice in Japan, there are cases in lower courts where responsibility has been reduced on the grounds that there was little expectation, and even cases where a defendant has been found not guilty on the grounds that there was no expectation, but the Supreme Court has taken a negative stance.

[Tetsuro Nawa]

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

行為者が犯罪以外の行為（適法行為）を行うことを期待できる可能性。このような適法行為の期待可能性を、単に、期待可能性Zumutbarkeit（ドイツ語）という。刑事責任を問うためには、期待可能性が必要であり、今日では、責任能力などとともに責任の一要素とされている。

　刑法上の責任のとらえ方につき、かつては心理的責任論とよばれる考え方を前提として、責任の実体は行為者の心理的関係（事実または可能性）と解され、行為者に責任能力のほか、故意または過失があれば責任を肯定しうるものと考えられていた。ところが、ドイツで、ライネンフェンガーLeinenfänger事件とよばれる有名な事件（馬車の御者が雇い主に対し暴れ馬を他の馬と交換するよう要求していたにもかかわらず、雇い主がこの要求に応ぜず、解雇すると迫ったので、やむをえず雇い主の命令に従い暴れ馬を使用していたところ、誤って通行人に負傷させたという事案。暴れ馬事件ともいう）に対し、ライヒ裁判所は、1897年、その職を失ってまで雇い主の命令に逆らうことは、前記の御者には期待できないとの理由で無罪を言い渡した。この判決を契機として、フランクReinhard Frank（1860―1934）をはじめ多くの有力な刑法学者が、責任能力者の故意または過失による行為であっても、行為の際の具体的事情によっては、行為者に責任を問いえない場合があることを認めるに至った。そして、刑法上の責任は、心理的要素とともに、行為者に適法行為に出ることを期待できるという規範的要素をも具備することを要するものと解されることとなった。このような背景のもとに、かつての心理的責任論にかわって、責任の本質は行為者に対する非難可能性であり、この非難可能性は適法行為の期待可能性の有無により判断されるとする規範的責任論が支配的となるに至った。規範的責任論においては、期待可能性は責任の中核をなし、責任の存否および程度を判断するうえで決定的な意義を有する。ただ、期待可能性に関し、とくにだれを基準としてこの可能性を判断すべきかという点につき、行為者標準説、通常人（平均人・一般人）標準説、国家標準説の争いがみられる。いずれにせよ、期待可能性の理論は、可罰的違法性の理論などとともに、刑法の画一的・形式的な運用を避け、その具体的妥当性を図るうえで、重要な意味をもつ。日本の実務でも、下級審裁判所判例には、期待可能性が少ないとして責任を軽減したもの、さらには期待可能性の不存在を理由に無罪としたものもみられるが、最高裁判所は消極的な態度をとっている。

［名和鐵郎］

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例