规范保护目的理论在我国发展和推进中所表现出的问题有三：体系性思考的不足、问题聚焦的欠缺以及对实务关注的不足；面临的争议亦有三：理论存废之争、体系定位之争、判断标准之争。规范保护目的在学界目前呈现出与规范目的、法益目的重叠使用的现象。鉴于后两则概念已经可以完成相应的解释学使命，为避免多重使用带来的不便以及为保障讨论的聚焦，可将规范保护目的限定为过失犯结果归属中的判断规则。规范保护目的不应被理解为目的解释的分支。前者是注意规范作为制裁规范发挥功能时的判断规则，强调刑罚权发动的合理性，侧重人权保障机能的实现，而后者侧重（狭义）法益保护机能的实现。规范保护目的与结果回避可能性、自我答责原理在限制结果归属中所发挥的功能各异，不可互相替代。规范保护目的理论只能存在于行为无价值二元论的分析框架中。对于规范保护目的的体系定位而言，应肯定将其置于“风险实现”层面的合理性。在这一层面上，规范保护目的发挥着“双重效能”：一是为结果回避可能性提供规范属性之源。结果回避可能性本质上与条件说的判断方式一致，其功能仍在于确定结果发生之原因。因此只有通过规范保护目的筛查后的因果流程，才能进入结果回避可能性的考察之中，这是结果回避可能性作为结果归属判断规则的规范属性来源。二是作为“风险实现”层面的具体判断规则。对于规范保护目的的判断路径而言，类型化进路看似简化了裁判过程，但实则仅在一定程度上揭示了其“表”，而未昭示其“里”。规范的合理功能说除对规范功能的探讨尚不彻底外，也存在着对规范正当化根据错位适用的问题。规范保护目的判断进路推进迟缓的原因在于既有研究对“防果因素”的依赖，这也使得其所要解决的案件范围变得“臃肿”。当注意规范的指引作用失效，由此引发的风险可分为两类：因行为人反应控制能力降低所引发的风险以及与该反应控制能力无关的风险。对应到规范保护目的中，就可区分为旨在规制行为人反应控制能力的目的和与该反应控制能力无关的目的。就前者的判断而言，若注意规范旨在维持行为人反应控制能力的话，那么与之相关的风险就都属于规范所欲避免的风险。就后者的判断而言，可借助与被违反的规范协同发挥作用的关联性规范将违反该规范的、处于无限延伸的“风险面”圈定为规范所欲避免的“风险闭环”。

There are three problems in the development and advancement of the purpose of normative protection theory in our country: the lack of systematic thinking, the lack of focusing on problem, and the lack of attention to practice. There are also three controversies: the dispute of existence or abolishment of the theory, the system of theory location,the way of theory judgment.The application of normative protection purpose is currently showing the phenomenon of overlapping use with normative purposes and legal interests. Considering that the latter two concepts can complete the criminal dogmatic task, in order to avoid the inconvenience caused by multiple use and to ensure the focus of discussion, the normative protection purpose can be limited to the judgment rule in the restrict of the negligence crime. The purpose of normative protection should not be understood as a branch of purpose interpretation. The former is the judgment role when the norm playing a role of sanctions norm. It emphasizes is the rationality of launching of the punishment power and pay attention to the realization of protecting human rights. However, the latter focuses on the realization of the legal interests(in the narrow sense). The purpose of normative protection, the possibility of avoidance of results, and the principle of self-accountability play different roles in limiting the attribution of results, which they cannot be substituted by each other. The theory of the purpose of normative protection can only exist in the framework of the dualism of act without value.Regarding the system location for the purpose of normative protection, it should be affirmed that it is reasonable to place it at the level of "risk realization". The purpose of normative protection plays a "dual effect" on this level. On one hand, it provides a source of normative attributes for avoiding the possibility of results. The possibility of result avoidance is essentially the same as the judgment method of the condition theory, and its function is still determining reasons of the result. Therefore, the causal process which is laying in the scope of purpose of normative protection can be tested by the possibility of result avoidance, which is the source of the normative nature of the possibility of result avoidance. Secondly, it plays as a judgment rule at the level of "risk realization".Regarding the judgment way for the purpose of normative protection, the way of categorization seems to make the judgment more easier, but in fact it only reveals the"outside" to a certain extent, and does not reveal its "inside". In addition to the incomplete discussion of the norm functions, the rational function norm theory also has the problem of misplaced application of normative justification. The reason for the slowly advancement of the judgment of the normative protection purpose lies in the dependence of existing research on the "prevention factors", which also makes the scope of the cases to be solved "bloated". When the guiding function of norms fails, the risks arising from the behavior can be divided into two categories. The risks caused by the reduction of the actor's reaction control ability and vice versa. Corresponding to the purpose of normative protection, it can be divided into two purposes. Firstly, the purpose of regulating the actor's reaction control ability and the purpose that has nothing to do with the reaction control ability. Regarding the former judgment, if norms aimed at maintaining the actor's response control ability, the risks which are associated with it are all risks that the norms intend to avoid. Regarding the latter judgment, the scope of risk which violated norm intend to prevent can be judged with the help of the associated norm that coordinate with the norms which are violated.