实质法治观与刑法实质解释论

发布时间：2018-04-20 22:04

本文选题：刑法实质解释论 + 实质法治　；参考：《国家检察官学院学报》2015年05期

【摘要】：通过考察实质法治的域外实践史,认为实质法治是以人权保障为价值追求和结果导向的法治观,有利于人权保障时才主张突破实定法,而非偏向社会保护或将其与人权保障等同权衡,因此适合我国国情。在刑事实质法治观念下的实质解释论,主张坚持偏向人权保障的实质公正观,解释的规范依据上主张法源的多元化,解释方法上注重法律体系内的价值衡量方法,解释边界上提出国民预测可能性、国民接受可能标准,主张通过提高解释程序的公正性,从外部保障解释结论的合法性。认为刑法形式解释论关于构成要件上先形式判断后实质判断的观点没有自洽性,不利于被告人的扩大解释应仅限于当然解释,犯罪的实质是当罚和需罚的行为,适当论证解释理由是合法解释的程序要件。
[Abstract]:By examining the practical history of the substantive rule of law abroad, the author holds that the substantive rule of law is a view of the rule of law based on the value pursuit and result orientation of the protection of human rights, and when it is beneficial to the protection of human rights, it advocates breaking through the actual law. It is not biased against social protection or weighed with human rights protection, so it is suitable for our national conditions. Under the concept of criminal substantive rule of law, the theory of substantive interpretation advocates upholding the view of substantive justice in favor of human rights protection, the normative basis of interpretation advocates the diversity of legal sources, and the method of interpretation emphasizes the value measurement method within the legal system. The possibility of national prediction is put forward in the interpretation boundary, and the possibility of national acceptance is accepted. It is advocated that the legitimacy of the conclusion should be guaranteed from the outside by improving the fairness of the interpretation procedure. It is considered that the view of the formal interpretation of criminal law on the elements of constitution is not consistent, which is not conducive to the expanded interpretation of the defendant, and the essence of the crime is the act that should be punished and should be punished. It is appropriate to demonstrate that the explanation reason is the procedural element of the legal interpretation.
【作者单位】：郑州大学法学院;
【分类号】：D914

【相似文献】