对解释论上“以刑制罪”现象的反思

Reflections on “Punishment to Crime” in Interpretative Theory

为解决规则与正义相冲突的难办案件,学者提出由刑到罪的方案,包括抽象的、量刑优于定罪的或者实质解释或者刑事政策导向的"以刑制罪"方案。后一种以刑事政策为中介,把价值判断转化为解释技术,对构成要件进行实质解释。在这一模型中,刑事政策、处罚必要性及其程度与危害性评价均置于对构成要件的解释之前,会产生诸多弊端,其根本原因在于实质解释论的缺陷。把价值判断引入到刑法之中需要通过犯罪论体系的实质化而非实质解释,在思维逻辑上实质性的判断不能过于靠前。只有将刑事政策用以指引刑法体系的构建而不是进行实质解释,才能实现体系的可控性。

In order to deal with hard cases in which rule and justice conflict,scholars raised proposals from punishment to crime,including abstract,＂sentencing over conviction＂,substantive interpretation or criminal policy-oriented ＂punishment to crime ＂ proposal. The last one views criminal policy as an intermediary,transforms the value judgments into technique of explanation, and adopts substantive explanation to the constituent elements. In this model,criminal policy,the need for and extent of punishment,the evaluation of harm are placed before the interpretation of constituent elements,which will cause many problems. The fundamental reason is the defects of substantive interpretation. To draw the value judgment into the criminal law,it should be handled through substantialize of the criminal law system rather than substantive interpretation. In the mode of thinking,substantive judgments cannot be put too forward. Only to pull the criminal policy into building the criminal law system rather than substantive interpretation,can the system achieve controllability.