司法解释对罪刑法定原则的冲突与妥协

Conflict and Compromise between Judicial Interpretation and Principle of Legally Prescribed Punishment for Specified Crime

虽然新刑法已将罪刑法定原则奉为帝王条款,让它在刑法的世界中指点江山,但本该安分守己的司法解释如雨后春笋般地在立法领域中给自己开垦了一块自留地,彰显着司法权对立法权肆无忌惮的侵蚀。这种冲突引发了学界对罪刑法定原则中法的范畴与司法解释定位问题的再思考。在罪刑法定的要求下明晰司法解释的合理定位,在罪刑法定的指导下规范司法解释的内容效力,在罪刑法定的释义下寻找司法解释的完善之路,使司法解释与罪刑法定原则相互妥协,增强刑法规范自身的体系性和妥释性。

Although the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime is taken as a＂king provision＂ by the new Criminal Law of P.R.C and holds a dominant guiding position in the world of criminal law, the emerging judicial interpretations, which are supposed to obedient, try to reclaim a plot in the legislation territory, demonstrating the infringement of judicial power on legislative power. This conflict has aroused much thinking and discussion on the scope of law in the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime and the position of judicial interpretation. To clarify the position of judicial interpretation in accordance with the principle, to regulate the validity of judicial interpretation contents under the guidance of the principle and to explore ways to perfect judicial interpretations based on the paraphrase of the principle will not only reach a compromise between judicial interpretation and the principle, but enhance the systematic and interpretive functions of criminal law.