形式解释与实质解释问题探究

发布时间：2018-02-28 10:02

本文关键词： 形式解释形式刑法观实质解释实质刑法观　出处：《昆明理工大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在刑法解释中,目前形式解释与实质解释的争议声仍然很大,两种解释对同一案件可能会得出不同的结论,这对我国的刑事司法实践产生着重要的影响。形式解释论者主张对刑法条文先进行形式上的解释,在可能语义范围内对刑法条文做出解释,以此来作为入罪标准,以社会危害性作为出罪标准。实质解释论者则是从处罚必要性出发,从实质上解释刑法条文,也就是排除那些没有社会危害性的行为,不认为这些行为构成犯罪。即先对某一行为进行实质解释,看是否具有严重的社会危害性或处罚必要性,然后再进行形式解释,看该行为是否包含在刑法条文可能具有的含义中。对于形式解释与实质解释的争论已经上升到形式刑法观与实质刑法观的的高度,形成了两大学派之争。目前,不管是形式解释还是实质解释,对大多数案件的评判结果都是一样的,但是对个别案件形式解释和实质解释存在着很大的差别。文章拟从形式解释与实质解释的基本理论出发,分析比较形式解释与实质解释分歧,最后结合我国法治现状得出符合我国刑事司法实践的刑法解释以及具有中国特色的刑法观。本文第一部分主要讲的是形式解释与实质解释的基础理论,包括对刑法解释的最基本的理解,接着就是对形式解释与实质解释的概念、内涵的基本阐述,其次是对形式解释、实质解释与主观解释客观解释之间的联系与区别进行对比。第二部分主要是通过分析刑法的基本立场和基本价值来分析形式解释与实质解释所坚持的刑法的基本立场以及所选择的刑罚的基本价值,认为形式解释坚持的是形式刑法观,选择的是保障人权的基本价值追求;实质解释坚持实质刑法观,更加注重对社会秩序的维护。第三部分主要是研究域外形式解释、实质解释的相关理论问题,以及作为舶来品的形式解释、实质解释在我国本土的发展以及我国刑法学界对形式解释、实质解释的主要分歧点。最后通过两个案例的比较,研究形式解释、实质解释在我国司法实践中的具体应用。第四部分主要是通过上述分析与比较,得出笔者自己的结论——以形式解释为主,辅之以实质解释,坚持形式理性带给我们的最后信仰。
[Abstract]:In the interpretation of the criminal law, the controversy between the formal interpretation and the substantive interpretation is still very loud. The two interpretations may draw different conclusions about the same case. This has an important influence on the criminal judicial practice in our country. The formal interpretationists advocate the formal interpretation of the provisions of the criminal law first, and interpret the provisions of the criminal law within the scope of possible semantics, which is regarded as the standard of incrimination. Taking social harmfulness as the standard of crime, the substantive hermeneutics proceed from the necessity of punishment and interpret the articles of criminal law in essence, that is to say, to exclude those acts which do not have social harmfulness. Do not consider these acts to constitute a crime... that is, to give a substantive interpretation of an act to see if it is of serious social harm or the necessity of punishment, and then to give a formal interpretation, To see if the act is included in the meaning of the articles of criminal law. The debate on formal interpretation and substantive interpretation has risen to the height of formal criminal law and substantive criminal law, forming two major schools of contention. No matter whether it is formal interpretation or substantive interpretation, the judgment results of most cases are the same, but there are great differences between the form interpretation and substantive interpretation of individual cases. This paper intends to proceed from the basic theory of formal interpretation and substantive interpretation. Analysis of differences between formal interpretation and substantive interpretation, Finally, according to the present situation of the rule of law in our country, the author puts forward the criminal law interpretation which accords with the criminal judicial practice of our country and the view of criminal law with Chinese characteristics. The first part of this paper mainly talks about the basic theory of formal interpretation and substantive interpretation. It includes the most basic understanding of the interpretation of criminal law, followed by the concept of formal interpretation and substantive interpretation, the basic elaboration of connotation, and the second is the interpretation of form. The second part mainly analyzes the basic of criminal law by analyzing the basic position and basic value of criminal law. The basic value of the position and the penalty chosen, It is believed that formal interpretation adheres to the concept of formal criminal law and chooses the pursuit of basic value to protect human rights, while substantive interpretation adheres to the concept of substantive criminal law and pays more attention to the maintenance of social order. The third part mainly focuses on the study of extraterritorial formal interpretation. The related theoretical problems of substantive interpretation, as well as the development of substantive interpretation in China's native land and the main divergences of formal interpretation and substantive interpretation in the field of criminal law of our country. Finally, through the comparison of two cases, The 4th part is mainly through the above analysis and comparison, draws the author's own conclusion-form interpretation is the main, supplemented by the substantive interpretation, in 4th part of the judicial practice in China, the main part is through the above analysis and comparison, the author's own conclusion-to form interpretation, supplemented by substantive interpretation, Stick to the final faith that formal reason brings to us.
【学位授予单位】：昆明理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.1

【相似文献】