摘要
我国刑法规范输出呈现出“刑法立法”与“司法解释”并行的二元结构。面对社会治理中的刑法规范输出需求,我国的首选不是刑法立法,而是快速出台司法解释。由于部分司法解释无法经得起“法治审视”,立法机关又不得不通过刑法修正将同一危害行为再次予以犯罪化。刑法修正案虽然增设了“新法”,但在先的司法解释仍具有效力;由于不存在一个被“新法”所直接替代的“旧法”,因而并不符合刑法溯及力的理论构造。同时,刑法修正也并未能带来否定司法解释的法律效果,却塑造出司法解释与刑法修正规范重叠的局面。应对规范重叠局面,应激活司法解释备案审查机制的“纽带”功能,在“问题性”司法解释提请审查之际便作出及时“否定”。同时,也应当调整刑法不应频繁修改的传统观念,以“零散式”修法模式将犯罪化诉求有效转化为刑法立法,如此方能克服司法解释与刑法修正案之间的规范重叠困境。
The output of criminal law norms in China exhibits a dual structure characterized by both“criminal legislation”and“judicial interpretation”.In response to the demand for criminal law norms in social governance,China often opts not to promptly enact criminal legislation but instead seeks to issue judicial interpretations for immediate response.However,as some judicial interpretations cannot withstand the scrutiny of the rule of law,the legislative body is compelled to criminalize the same unlawful behavior again through criminal law amendments.Compared to judicial interpretations,the newly added offenses in criminal law amendments feature clearer and more specific descriptive language in their stipulations,along with relatively lenient statutory penalties that better align with the severity of the offenses.This demonstrates the effect of legislating minor offenses to correct the imbalance in criminal liability resulting from judicial interpretations and to tighten the criminal law net.However,it raises the dilemma of normative overlap between judicial interpretations and criminal law amendments.From an applicability perspective,the newly added offenses in the criminal law amendments do not directly modify judicial interpretations or the offenses they apply to.In other words,there is no“old law”being directly replaced by the“new law”.The Criminal Code's remediation of problematic judicial interpretations does not align with the logical structure of retroactive effect.The theory of“applying the old law and favoring lighter penalties”contains a theoretical fallacy.Theoretically,the“thorough denial theory”may represent a positive call at the academic level.However,since criminal law amendments are not a negation process for judicial interpretations,they cannot produce legal effects that actually invalidate the efficacy of judicial interpretations.Therefore,only the issuing authority of judicial interpretations can be expected to self-denounce.The“separate application theory”lacks logical coherence,as acknowledging the validity and legitimacy of judicial interpretations as“primary norms”and their adjudication outcomes would lead to the risk of subsequent criminal law amendments being rendered ineffective.Essentially,the standardized repetition of legal interpretations reveals the arbitrariness of judicial pronouncements and their impact on criminal rule of law.This further demonstrates that if legislative bodies fail to promptly introduce new minor offenses,serious crimes can still be actively addressed through expansive or even analogical interpretations.This,in turn,leads to an imbalance between crimes and penalties,endangering the principle of legality.To address the problem of redundant and repetitive judicial interpretations,it is essential to fully leverage the“bridging”role of the judicial interpretation filing and review mechanism.Timely“negation”should be implemented when problematic judicial interpretations are issued,while promptly transforming the criminalization demands involved in these negated interpretations into criminal law legislation.In short,the negation of problematic judicial interpretations should be closely linked with the initiation of criminal law legislation,advancing in tandem.By adopting a“piecemeal”legislative amendment model,criminalization demands can be effectively translated into criminal law legislation,achieving a balance between“abolition”and“enactment”.Only then can the dilemma of overlapping judicial interpretations and criminal law amendments be overcome.
出处
《暨南学报(哲学社会科学版)》
北大核心
2025年第11期67-84,共18页
Jinan Journal(Philosophy and Social Sciences)
基金
国家社会科学基金项目“司法解释与刑法修正案重复输出困境及其关系协同对策研究”(23BFX130)
中央高校基本科研业务费项目“‘隔空’性侵犯罪刑法治理问题研究”(3132024309)。
关键词
司法解释
刑法修正案
规范重叠
修法模式
轻罪立法
judicial interpretation
amendment of criminal law
normative overlap
revision mode
legislation on minor offenses
