形式和实质的解释论之争与犯罪论体系的选择

Disputes between Formalistic & Substantial Interpretations: Choice of Criminal Theories

当前,在我国刑法解释领域内,形式解释论与实质解释论之争是一种颇为引人注目的争论。因为各学者在对这两类解释论基本涵义的认识上并不统一,所以这一论争在目前呈现出一种较为混乱的状态。通过深入分析这两类解释论主要倡导者的学术观点,可以发现,两类解释论之争的核心问题依然是犯罪论体系的选择问题,即是选择德日古典的三阶层判断式的犯罪论体系,还是选择一种综合判断式的犯罪论体系。在犯罪的认定上,主张分层式逻辑判断的德日犯罪论体系并不具有明显的合理性,而主张平面式综合判断的我国传统犯罪构成体系,不仅在理论上具有相对的合理性,而且在实践中也是可行的。

At present, a remarkable debate arose in China as to the preferability of formalistic or substan- tial interpretation of criminal law. Since views among scholars vary a lot as to the basic meaning of the two in- terpretation theories, it seems that no consensus can be achieved in short time. An in-depth analysis of the leading academic positions about the two theories may reveal that the core issue of the dispute is no more than choice of criminal theories, i. e. , whether to select the ＂German-Japanese classic three-leveled criminal theo- ry＂ or the ＂criminal theory with comprehensive judgment. ＂ As far as crime conviction is concerned, the former theory seems without much justification while the latter one popular in China＇ s traditional criminal law appears preferable in logic and available in practice