“风险规范”的刑法解释:困境与出路  

The Criminal Law Interpretation of"Risk Norm":Dilemma and Way Out

作　　者：李想 LI Xiang(School of Criminal Justice,Zhongnan University of Economics and Law,Wuhan,Hubei,430073,China)

机构地区：[1]中南财经政法大学刑事司法学院,湖北武汉430073

出　　处：《西安石油大学学报（社会科学版）》2021年第5期86-92,共7页Journal of Xi’an Shiyou University:Social Science Edition

基　　金：中南财经政法大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目“企业合规视野下附条件不起诉制度研究”(202110715)。

摘　　要：在风险社会的宏观背景下,为避免“风险规范”脱离罪刑法定侵犯人权,惟有从解释学着手进行纠偏。既有刑法解释存在实质解释与形式解释之分歧,因形式解释者不排斥甚至主张对构成要件进行实质解释,所以形式解释也应归入实质解释的范畴。实质解释有限缩处罚范围之功能,为保障国民的自由,对“风险规范”必须进行实质解释。实质解释者主张解释构成要件时应从法益概念中攫取目的的正义,但是,集体法益犯罪的大量出现与解释者对法益概念的宏观解读,造成法益的解释规制机能进一步弱化,面对法益概念的困境,实质解释应当认清法益概念变迁对自身产生的影响并积极采取措施予以应对。Under the macro background of risk society,in order to avoid the departure of"risk norm"from the crime legal principle and and the violation of human rights,we have to correct the deviation from hermeneutics.There are differences between substantive interpretation and formal interpretation in the existing criminal law interpretation,because the formal interpretation does not reject or even advocate the substantive interpretation of the constitutive elements,the formal interpretation should also be included in the category of substantive interpretation.Substantive interpretation can limit the function of punishment scope,so substantial interpretation must be carried out to"risk norms"in order to protect the freedom of citizens.Real interpreter claims that we should grab the justice of purpose from the concept of legal interest while explaining the constitutive requirements.However,a spate of collective legal interest crimes and interpreter's macro interpretation to the concept of legal interest make the further reduction of regulation function of legal interest interpretation.Therefore,in the face of the plight of the concept of legal interest,substantial explanation should recognize the impact of legal interest concept change on itself,and take active measures to deal with.

关 键 词：《刑法修正案》 风险规范 实质解释 罪刑法定 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]