针对有关疑难案件的理论缺陷和实践困境,学者提出的观点和学说呈现出多样化的表现形式,其间涉及疑难案件的产生原因和判断标准等诸多问题。由此,在司法实践中,大致形成的是包括自由主义和规范主义在内的两种疑难案件解决路径,而两者之间表现出较为明显的复杂性和差异性。究其原因,疑难案件理论形态的多样化源自人们潜意识里的难题偏好,而难题偏好的出现可以从不同方面加以阐释。虽然在宏观层面后续研究没有突破先前设定的基本框架,甚至对疑难案件的探讨还有很多值得推敲和细究之处,但这同时意味着疑难案件理论需要结合本国实际进行补充完善,以期对理论和实践产生重要的指导意义。 In view of the theoretical defects and practical dilemmas of difficult cases, the scholars’ opinions and doctrines presented various forms of expression, which involved many problems such as the causes and standards of judgment of difficult cases. Thus, in judicial practice, roughly formed is the path of solving two difficult cases including liberalism and canonization, and the two show more obvious complexity and difference. The reason for this is that the diversification of the theoretical forms of difficult cases stems from subconscious puzzle preferences, and the emergence of puzzle preferences can be explained from different aspects. Although the follow-up study on the macroscopic level did not break through the basic framework set in the past, there are many worthy of investigation and careful study of the difficult cases. However, this also means that the difficult case theory needs to be supplemented and supplemented with the actual conditions in our country, And practice have important guiding significance.