《刑法》立法解释的类推倾向实证研究——兼为实质解释论正名  

The Empirical Research on Criminal Law Legislative Interpretation Analogy Tendency——And to Justify the Substantive Interpretation

作　　者：杨楠[1] 

机构地区：[1]甘肃政法学院,法学院,甘肃兰州73070

出　　处：《河北科技师范学院学报（社会科学版）》2015年第4期80-88,共9页Journal of Hebei Normal University of Science & Technology(Social Sciences)

摘　　要：全国人大常委会陆续出台的13部刑法立法解释中存在不少类推解释。其类推解释的症候主要集中在行为要素、主体要素、对象要素和责任承担机制等四个方面。对构成要件行为、主体和对象的解释突破了立法对相关犯罪确定的观念定型,对责任承担机制的重新分配也本应采用立法程序确立。类推解释的产生,根源于法律对某类行为欠缺明文规定,直接归因于司法活动的功利目的。刑事司法活动着眼于对危害行为的规制和具体案件的处理,是在唯恐自身违背罪刑法定原则的情形下而提请全国人大常委会做出解释的。所以,只有满足司法的功利目的,才能最大限度扭转类推解释倾向。对此,立法主体一方面可以采用实质解释方法,将刑法规范和案件事实勾联起来;另一方面,在无法用解释填补法律漏洞、应对司法实践的情形下,要善于使用立法手段,用严整的立法程序将行为犯罪化。Thirteen legislative interpretations approved by NPC developed some analogy interpretations,which focus on four aspects： the behavioral elements,the subject elements,the object elements and the responsibility assumption mechanisms,and the interpretation to these broke the concept of crime,the relocation of the responsibility assumption mechanisms also should adopt legislative process. Analogy interpretation resulted from the lacking of the provision of certain behavior or directly from the utilitarian purpose of judicial activities. Criminal justice activities focus on the regulation and harmful behavior in a specific case processing,in case that they are against the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified case,they submit it to NPC to get the interpretation. Thus,only to meet the judicial utilitarian purpose,can we reverse analogy interpretation tendency in a maximum level. On the one hand,legislative subjects can adopt a substantial interpretation to connect the norms of criminal law with the case facts,on the other hand,if we can＇t use the interpretations to fill the legal loopholes or to deal with the judicial practice,we must be good at using the means of legislation to make the behavior crime with rigorous legislation process.

关 键 词：刑法立法解释 类推解释 功利性 实质解释论 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]