Interpretation Of Criminal Law Of The Storm

The major controversy over interpreting Criminal Law is between formalistic interpretation and substantial interpretation. Formalistic interpretation focuses mainly on the principle of legality, which orders judiciaries strictly interpret laws literally conforming to the legal provisions, and carry out convictions and sentences according to the elements of crimes in individual cases. Judiciaries are not supposed to interpret laws beyond the meaning of legal provisions, and are expected to be loyal guardians of laws. Substantial interpretation focuses mainly on interpreting laws substantially conforming to the purpose of legislation and realizing the function of protecting the criminal interests. It’s a way to actualize substantial justice in individual cases, and expects judiciaries to be "umpires in a game". Although the two views are both based theoretically on the principle of legality, and both seek the combination of substantive rationality and formal rationality to the maximum extent, they hold different interpretation of the principle of legality and have been in an intense oppositional relationship which can’t be reconciled.How to make a choice between the two viewpoints is the confusion confronted by judiciaries in practice. Due to the disagreements and misunderstandings on the principle of legality, some people limit the interpretations of Criminal Law for no reason, restricting judiciaries from reasonably interpreting laws. While law articles are blurred and ambiguous, and no judicial interpretation is implemented, judiciaries are in a dilemma:On the one hand, although criminal justice has the mission of punishing crimes, judiciaries are afraid of and reluctant to abuse judicial power and hence violate the principle of legality. They could only adjudicate "legally but unreasonably" according to "nullum crimen sine lege", and they will be criticized of indulgening crimes. On the other hand, if judiciaries, with a subjective initiative, under the guidance of the interests protected by Criminal Law, substantively interpret criminal provisions’legislative purposes and the necessity of punishment, they will judge "reasonably but illegally", leading to the criticism of "abusing judicial power and violating human rights". What should judiciaries do? It’s a dilemma which is hard for them to choose a way out.From the perspective of a judicial official and on the point of the different interpretations of the newly added facts of the crime of transaction by force in the Eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law, this dissertation observes the two criminal interpretations and analyses them through the cases arising from real practice, pointing out their pros and cons and finding out solutions. According to the current situation of judiciaries that the theoretical foundation of substantial interpretation is immature, we should mainly adopt formalistic interpretation and forbid substantial interpretations that "convict beyond law", except for those guided by the principle of legality and for the interests of defendants, which are the beneficial supplement for the "conviction by law" of formalistic interpretation. The innovations of this dissertation lie in guaranteeing the reasonability of Criminal Law interpretation by adding "legitimate and rational interpretations" in legal documents, bringing the system of people’s assessors into play, and establishing systems such as criminal case-guiding system, etc.