论文部分内容阅读
我国刑法解释理论存在着主观解释和客观解释之争。主观解释即形式解释,主张对刑罚法规进行形式的、字面的解释,刑法解释是对立法者原意的探究。客观解释即实质解释,主张对刑罚法规进行实质的、合目的的解释。但刑法解释者必须根据实质的、正义的标准来区分罪与非罪。客观解释不仅危及罪刑法定原则,而且存在着模糊立法与刑法解释的界限。在全面推进依法治国的当下中国,刑法解释应该坚持主观解释的标准,遵循文义解释优先的解释位阶。在刑法解释的限度上,需要坚持解释的保守性,依据罪刑法定原则限制国家刑罚权的价值诉求,凝聚价值共识,追寻形式法治。
There is a dispute between subjective interpretation and objective interpretation in the theory of criminal law interpretation in our country. Subjective interpretation is the form of interpretation, advocating a formal and literal interpretation of penal laws and regulations. The interpretation of criminal law is an inquiry into the original intention of the legislator. The objective explanation is the substantive explanation, advocating a substantive and concerted explanation of the penal code. However, the interpreters of criminal law must distinguish between sin and non-sin on the basis of substantive and just standards. Objective explanation not only endangers the legal principle of the crime and punishment, but also has the boundary between the fuzzy legislation and the criminal law. In the current China that comprehensively promotes the rule of law, the interpretation of criminal law should adhere to the standard of subjective interpretation and follow the precedence explained by the text. At the limit of the interpretation of criminal law, we need to insist on the conservativeness of interpretation, restrict the value demands of the state penalty power according to the statutory principle of crime and punishment, unite the consensus of value, and pursue the rule of law.