论刑事司法解释与刑法文义射程之间的紧张关系

On the Tension between Criminal Judicial Interpretation and the Boundary of the Literal Meaning of Criminal Law Provisions

根据《立法法》第104条的规定,刑事司法解释须以刑法文义射程作为边界。然而,国家最高司法机关在“事实中心主义”刑事司法哲学的影响下,制定的一些刑事司法解释表现出突破刑法文义射程的问题,在规则设定意义上造成了侵害国民权利和自由的法治风险。同时,司法者表现出盲从刑事司法解释而机械司法的问题。为了防范刑事司法解释突破刑法文义射程所造成的法治风险现实化,应当强化司法者运用“把法律作为修辞”的司法方法。因为,该司法方法的运用,可以引导司法者在观念中树立刑法的权威性,在司法实践中认真对待法律话语,自觉摒弃超出刑法文义射程的刑事司法解释。当然,司法者要正确运用“把法律作为修辞”的司法方法,就应当在坚持刑法封闭性的同时,保持刑法向着社会生活开放,通过充分对话实现司法的公正性,即应遵循以合法性作为根本要求、以合理性作为实质要求和以充分论辩作为合程序性要求之原则。

According to Article 104 of“legislation law”,criminal judicial interpretation must take the range of text meaning of articles as the boundary.However,under the influence of the criminal justice philosophy of“fact centrism”,some criminal judicial interpretations formulated by the country’s highest judicial organ show the problem of breaking through the range of the meaning of articles,resulting in the risk of violating the rule of law of national rights and freedom in the sense of rule setting.At the same time,in judicial practice,the judiciary shows blind compliance with criminal judicial interpretation,resulting in the problem of mechanical justice.Therefore,in order to prevent the realization of the legal risk caused by the breakthrough of criminal judicial interpretation,it is necessary to strengthen the judicial method of“taking law as rhetoric”by the judiciary.Because the application of this judicial method can guide the judiciary to establish the authority of criminal law in their ideas,take legal discourse seriously in practice,and consciously abandon the criminal judicial interpretation beyond the text meaning of articles.Furthermore,to correctly use the judicial method of“taking law as rhetoric”,the judiciary should adhere to the closure of criminal law,keep the criminal law open to social life,and achieve judicial justice through full dialogue,that is,they should follow the principles of legality as the fundamental requirement,rationality as the substantive requirement and full debate as the procedural requirement.