不利于被告人的扩大解释之正当性质疑

发布时间：2018-03-04 00:39

  本文选题：扩大解释　切入点：类推解释　出处：《湖北社会科学》2017年06期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：基于扩大解释不违背罪刑法定、扩大解释与类推解释能够区分、扩大解释具有必要性的认识,我国刑法理论的主流观点认为,扩大解释具有正当性。但这一观点值得质疑。认真审视通说关于扩大解释是正当的具体论证,可以发现:用语可能具有的含义无法实现罪刑法定要求的罪刑预告功能、相对的罪刑法定只允许保障人权的刑法解释、兜底条款与罪刑法定存在距离而无法为扩大解释"正名",扩大解释违反了罪刑法定;通说提出的区分扩大解释与类推解释的标准不能有效区分二者,事实上,扩大解释的内在结构也决定了扩大解释与类推解释根本无法区分;罪刑法定时代规范供给不足、刑事立法需要保持稳定性、扩大解释可以便利及时地保障个案正义,并不能推导出扩大解释具有必要性。扩大解释并不正当,应当禁止一切不利于被告人的扩大解释。
[Abstract]:Based on the understanding that the expanded interpretation is not contrary to the legality, that the expanded interpretation can be distinguished from the analogous interpretation, and that it is necessary to expand the interpretation, the mainstream view of our criminal law theory is that, However, this viewpoint is worthy of questioning. When we carefully examine the concrete argument that the expansion of interpretation is justified, we can find that the meaning of terms may not be able to achieve the function of anticipating the punishment of a crime as required by a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. The relative crime criminal law only allows the criminal law interpretation which guarantees the human rights, and there is a distance between the bottom clause and the crime criminal law, and it is impossible to expand the interpretation "correct name" and expand the interpretation to violate the crime criminal law. In fact, the internal structure of the extended interpretation also determines that there is no distinction between the expanded interpretation and the analogy interpretation. Criminal legislation needs to maintain stability, the expansion of interpretation can facilitate the timely protection of case justice, can not infer the necessity of expanded interpretation, the expansion of interpretation is not legitimate, should prohibit all unfavorable to the expanded interpretation of the defendant.
【作者单位】： 南京师范大学;
【基金】：江苏省普通高校研究生科研创新计划项目“刑法解释中存疑有利于被告原则研究”(KYLX16_1210)的阶段性研究成果 “江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目”(PAPD)资助
【分类号】：D924.1
，

本文编号：1563426