罪刑法定原则与刑法司法解释的冲突和协调

The Conflict and Coordination between Principle of a Legally Prescribed Punishment for a Specified Crime and Criminal Judicial Interpretation

修订后的《刑法》第3条规定:"法律没有明文规定为犯罪行为的,不得定罪处刑。"这就是理论界所称的罪刑法定原则。罪刑法定原则"为公民自由与国家刑罚权之间划出了一条明确的界限,它有利于对公民个人权利的保障,是社会主义法制原则在刑法中的直接体现"[1]。罪刑法定原则的法典化获得了刑事理论界和实务的普遍赞誉,它标志着我国的社会主义法制建设正在逐步走向成熟与完善。罪刑法定原则作为一项刑事立法原则,也是一项重要的刑事司法原则,对刑事司法活动起着指导作用。而刑法解释是"对刑法的含义给予更准确、更明了的提示和说明。"[2]刑法司法解释作为对刑法规定的一种阐述运动,在司法活动中起着普遍性的刑法规范运用于具体案件的沟通作用。在司法实践中,一方面,根据罪刑法定原则,司法人员必须忠实了法律,严格依法办事,不得任意解释刑法;另一方面,司法人员在处理具体案件的过程中又不可避免的掺入个人的法律意识。立法上罪刑法定原则的确立与实践中刑法司法解释的盛行之间的矛盾与冲突使刑法理论界不得不冷静下来重新审视罪刑法定原则的意义,并探究罪刑法定原则与刑法司法解释之间的关系,以期从二者的冲突中寻求能够协调二者关系的最佳途径。

Principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime has been established in new criminal code, which symbolizes that legal construction is in progress in our country. Principle of a legally prescribed pun- ishment for a specified crime is widely observed by the judges, while the judge＇s personal opinion is also involved in the specified case judicial interpretation, which causes the conflict between them. The conflict has made the theo- retical world of criminal law newly examine the meaning of principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a speci- fied crime, and try tO find out the relation between principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime and judicial interpretation, which aims at finding out the best way to coordinate the two.