论文部分内容阅读
形式解释论与实质解释论在刑法解释问题上提出了针锋相对的观点,形成了解释理论中的对立和争鸣。然而,两种解释论均存在一定缺陷,不能成为指导刑法解释的有效方法。但不可否认,两者分别倡导的形式限制和实质判断的方法适应了刑法解释的现实性要求,应当借鉴两种解释论的优点进行理论重构,即坚持刑法解释的向度与限度。刑法解释的向度就是以实现刑法正义作为方向指引和判断标准,具体来说就是要符合法益保护和人权保障理念;刑法解释的限度要求解释结论不能超出刑法文本的边界范围,应当以文义限制、规范限制和体系限制作为限度条件。向度与限度分别独立发挥指导与约束的功能,同时通过相互配合与制约实现解释结论的公正性与合法性。
Formal interpretative theory and substantive interpretation theory put forward diametrically opposed views on the interpretation of criminal law and form the antinomy and contestation in the explanation theory. However, both theories of interpretation have some defects and can not be an effective method to guide the interpretation of criminal law. However, it is undeniable that the formal restrictions and substantive judgments advocated by both methods are adapted to the practical requirements of criminal law interpretation and should be reconstructed from the theory by referring to the advantages of the two kinds of interpretation theories, that is, to insist on the orientation and limit of criminal law interpretation. The direction of criminal law interpretation is to realize the criminal justice as the direction and criteria for judging, specifically, it is to comply with the concept of legal protection and protection of human rights; the limits of criminal law interpretation of the interpretation of conclusions can not be beyond the boundaries of the text of the criminal law should be limited to the text , Regulatory restrictions and system limitations as a limit condition. The degree and limit of independence play a guiding and binding function, at the same time through mutual cooperation and constraints to achieve the interpretation of the fairness and legitimacy.