The Turn Of Functionalist Criminal Law Interpretation Position

The high-altitude parabolic behavior puts the lives,bodies,property,and stability of life(quiet)of most people in danger,and the danger cannot be controlled,and it may expand and increase at any time.Therefore,the legal benefits of the high-altitude parabolic behavior are public safety and can be dangerous.The crime of method endangering public safety is punished.The ’Trial Opinions’ stated that the change in Article 114 of the Criminal Law ’endangering public security’ as ’enough to endanger public security’ may not necessarily result in a reduction in the penal standard.Even if the suspicion is reduced,it is indeed necessary to reduce it under social demand.The nature of parabolic behavior at height reflects the dialectical relationship between the needs of criminal policy and the trend of criminal legislation.During the legislative process,the line of law policy should not be adopted,the criminal norms need to be revised,and the line of legal teachings should not be adopted.Logic obscures real needs.Out of consideration of the legislative gains and losses,it is the best policy to interpret the criminal policy and criminal legislation.Due to the inherent drawbacks of traditional form of interpretation and substantive interpretation,such as unclear concepts,unclear connotations,inconsistent arguments,and different results,they are analyzed from the perspective of functionalist law,adopting the functionalist criminal law interpretation standpoint,taking social needs as the value orientation,and standardizing criminal law To be supplemented will help balance the variability of social needs and the adaptability of legislative norms.At the same time,in order to prevent the functionalist criminal law interpretation from causing the criminal rule of law to slip into the state of crime and punishment,the functionalist criminal law interpretation should be systematically controlled to achieve a balance between criminal policy and criminal legislation.This article is composed of five parts,basically following the status quo characterization of the problem—analysis of controversial viewpoints—discussing the causes—disadvantages of existing approaches—innovative approach argumentation logic.The first part,’Preface’,is a representation of the status quo of the problem.The main content of the paragraph includes the policy orientation of parabolic behavior at height,social harm,public opinion attention,legislative dynamics,academic disputes,etc.It is believed that in order to realize the modernization of national governance,the state should regulate the ’parabolic behavior at height’ that causes high levels of public anxiety.The‘99 Views of Trial Opinions’set the tone for parabolic behavior at high altitudes,expressing the country’s determination to govern such behaviors,but it also caused academics to question the dislocation of legislative legal benefits and the lower threshold of conviction.Therefore,the issue of penalties for parabolic behavior at high altitude presents the status quo of state activeness,social support,academic doubts,and judicial doubts.The second part‘Analysis of the Interpretation of Parabolic Behavior at High Altitude’is the analysis of controversial viewpoints.The main content of the paragraph includes the focus of controversy,reason analysis,conclusion of argumentation,etc.It is believed that the contention of parabolic behavior at height lies in whether the crime is appropriate and whether the threshold is appropriate.Since the parabolic behavior at height affects the life,body,property,and stability of life(quiet)of most people,and the danger cannot be controlled,it may expand and increase at any time,so the legal benefits caused by the parabolic behavior at height are public safety.The crime of dangerous methods endangering public safety shall be regulated appropriately.Moreover,the ’sufficient ’ norms proposed in the’Trial Opinions’ are not abstract specific expressions of dangerous crimes,so they may not lower the threshold of conviction.In retrospect,if there is a reduction,there is also a need to reduce under social control considerations.The third part ’the choice of the path to perfect the thought of criminal law’ is to explore the root causes.The main content of the paragraph includes the comparison of ways to improve,the review of the needs of the people,the cost and gains and losses of amendments to the law,etc.,and it is believed that the parabolic behavior at height reflects the trend of criminal policy under social demand and its impact on criminal legislation.Since the needs of the people are not all justified,excessive legislation can easily lead to the generalization of criminal law and secondary crimes,so the legislation should be cautious.However,it is also not allowed to take the approach of legal doctrine,being trapped by ’pure jurisprudence’,causing criminal legislation to divorce from social reality and only pursue the completion of formal logic.The fourth part,‘the theoretical exploration of explaining the difference of position’,is the drawback of the existing approaches.The main content of the paragraph includes the clarification of the interpretation theory category,the interpretation of the interpretation theory,and the misunderstanding analysis.It is believed that the formal interpretation and the substantive interpretation are often conceptually confused with the subjective interpretation,objective interpretation,constitutive element theory,illegal liability theory,discoverism and teleology.And in the process of debate,there are often misunderstandings or smears,resulting in unclear connotations and unclear boundaries between the two interpretation theories.The fifth part ’the concept advocacy of functionalist jurisprudence’ is the demonstration of innovation path.The paragraph mainly includes the historical evolution of functionalism theory and the connotation judgment of functionalism law.It is believed that functionalism,as a constructive method,has a strong pragmatism color and has unique advantages for solving social problems.Since the path of functionalist legislation is prone to the tendency of transitional criminalization or phenomenon-based legislation,it is better to adopt interpretation strategies than legislative strategies.Functionalist criminal law interpretation takes social function as its value orientation,and takes the greatest common divisor of statutory crimes and social control to explain concepts and standardize society,which balances the variability of criminal policies and the stability of criminal legislation.At the same time,the idea of systematic control is proposed to ensure that the interpretation approach does not cause the rule of law to fall into a preemptive situation.