从晚近几年出台的几部刑法修正案来看，预防性刑法的扩张趋势显著增强。预防性刑法的发展面临两难的处境，一方面，社会需要预防性刑法积极地防控风险，维护安全；另一方面，又要警惕预防性刑法不合理扩张带来的危害。预防总是与提早干预相关，如果为了安全而放弃刑法的谦抑原则，必然会过度限缩公民的权利与自由。鉴此，如何使预防性刑法在必要扩张的同时能够实现维护安全与保障人权的合理平衡，探寻预防性刑法扩张的合理限度，避免犯罪的过度化及刑罚的滥用，具有重要意义，这也是本文所要研究的问题。

本文共分为四部分：

第一部分，预防性刑法的概述。从预防性刑法概念入手，通过分析预防性刑法扩张的特征、目的以及我国预防性刑法扩张的具体方式，对预防性刑法有一个全面的介绍，以期为后文的展开做一个良好的铺垫。

第二部分，分析当今时代预防性刑法适度扩张的合理性及必要性。预防性刑法的扩张是具有现实基础的。当下，社会风险不断增多，安全问题凸显。相应地，国家和社会的安全观念也发生了变化，安全的含义更为丰富，内容也更加多元。无论是国家层面，还是公民个人层面，都迫切期待刑法积极作为，将风险及时扼杀在摇篮里。在这种背景下，恪守传统的刑法观念已经无法实现更为及时、有效地治理犯罪的目标，以一般预防为目的的预防性刑法的合理扩张顺应了社会发展的趋势。

第三部分，分析预防性刑法不合理扩张中存在的问题。以一般预防为目的犯罪治理思路有可能带来刑法的无节制，刑法突破了谦抑的美德，挤占其它部门法的适用空间，从而导致过度的犯罪化。另一方面，过分地顺应民意，在立法上对民众有求必应看似“民主”，但容易导致情绪性立法、应急性立法，这样的立法产生的恶果最终还是由民众去承担。国家将刑法作为处理危机的先行手段和安抚民众的工具，而怠于从更深层次治理犯罪，实际上是一种懒政思维。从已有的实践分析，危险驾驶罪是预防性刑法的一个典型体现，从2011年到现在，“醉驾入刑”已有十年，在司法实践中暴露了诸多问题。但立法机关似乎并没有汲取足够的教训，在已经通过的《刑法修正案（十一）》中增设了大量的预防性犯罪，这种做法是否妥当，值得深思。

第四部分，探究预防性刑法扩张的合理限度。在现实的社会背景之下，预防性刑法的适度扩张是必然的，但刑法自身的局限性必然要求刑法的扩张有一定的限制。首先，预防性刑法的扩张必须受传统刑法原则的限制。其次，预防性刑法扩张中要理性对待民意的诉求，正确对待民意，积极引导民意，通过刑法之外的努力，破除民众中存在的 “刑法万能主义”观念。同时在立法方面，要合理入罪，禁止处罚不当罚。预防性刑法扩张中面临着法益扩大化、抽象化、稀薄化，但是，无论法益概念怎样发展，都不能将“安全感”法益化，将“道德”法益化；在立法模式上，可借鉴我国逃税罪的立法模式，引入刑罚阻却事由，防止犯罪圈过分膨胀。最后，司法也应发挥出罪功能，利用“但书”、司法解释等合理出罪，从多个层面将预防性刑法扩张限制在合理限度之内。

Judging from the several amendments to the criminal law issued in recent years, the expansion trend of preventive criminal law has increased significantly. The development of preventive criminal law faces a dilemma. On the one hand, society needs preventive criminal law to actively prevent and control risks and maintain safety; on the other hand, it must be vigilant against the harm caused by unreasonable expansion of preventive criminal law. Prevention is always related to early intervention. If the modest principle of criminal law is abandoned for safety, it will inevitably restrict citizens' rights and freedoms excessively. In view of this, how to make preventive criminal law necessary to expand while achieving a reasonable balance between safeguarding security and protecting human rights, exploring the reasonable limits of preventive criminal law expansion, and avoiding excessive crimes and punishments, is of great significance. This is also this article. The problem to be studied.

The thesis includes four parts:

The first part is an overview of preventive criminal law. Starting from the concept of preventive criminal law, through the analysis of the characteristics and purpose of the expansion of preventive criminal law and the specific ways of the expansion of preventive criminal law in our country, this paper has a comprehensive introduction of preventive criminal law, in order to pave the way for the later article.

The second part analyzes the rationality and necessity of preventive criminal law expansion. The expansion of preventive criminal law has a realistic basis. At present, the risks continue to increase and security issues are prominent. Correspondingly, the conception of security, whether in national level or in social level, has changed. Both the government and the citizens urgently require criminal law to act actively, to stifle risks in the cradle in time, and the traditional conception of criminal law is not adaptable to achieve the purpose of governing society.

The third part analyzes the problems existing in the expansion of preventive criminal law. The idea of governance for the purpose of general prevention is likely to bring about the intemperance of criminal law. Criminal law might break through the virtues of modesty and squeeze the applicable space of other departmental laws, which leads to excessive criminalization. Excessive criminalization will restrict the civil rights too much. On the other hand, overcompliance with public opinions in legislation, which seems as democracy, will lead to emotional legislation and emergency legislation. And the bad result of these legislations will be borne by the citizens. It is a kind of lazy political thinking that the state uses criminal law as a means to deal with crises and a tool to appease citizens, instead of in-depth governance of crime. From the analysis of existing practice, the crime of dangerous driving is a typical example of preventive criminal law. From 2011 to the present, it has been ten years for "drunk driving to be sentenced". Many problems have been exposed in judicial practice. Practice has proved that "drunk driving to be sentenced" does more harm than good. However, the legislature does not seem to have learned enough lessons. In the already passed Criminal Law Amendment XI, some preventive crimes have been added in a short period of time, without being fully discussed and evaluated.

The fourth part explores the reasonable limits of preventive criminal law expansion. Under the realistic social background, the moderate expansion of preventive criminal law is inevitable, but the inherent limitations of criminal law require that the expansion of criminal law should be restricted. First of all, the expansion of preventive criminal law must be restricted by the principles of traditional criminal law, as well as the principles of restraint, proportionality, and human rights protection. Secondly, in the expansion of preventive criminal law, it is necessary to rationally treat the demands of public opinion, treat public opinion correctly, guide public opinion actively, and break people's deep-rooted idea of "criminal law omnipotence" through efforts. Thirdly, from the legislative aspect, it is necessary to reasonably incriminate and prohibit improper punishment. The expansion of preventive criminal law is faced with the expansion, abstraction, and deficiency of legal benefits. But no matter how the concept of legal benefits develops, the "sense of security" and the morality cannot be transformed to legal benefits. In the legislative model, we can learn from the crime of tax evasion in our country, and introduce penal deterrents to prevent excessive expansion of the crime circle. Finally, the judiciary should also perform the function of crime, using "province", judicial interpretations and other reasonable crimes to expand the preventive criminal law within reasonable limits from multiple levels.