The Queries about and Analyses of Polemics between the Formal Interpretation Doctrine and the Substantial Interpretation Doctrine
The heat has not been come off the polemic between formal interpretation doctrine and substantial interpretation doctrine which is actually"an hot issue in the disguise of a cold topic",however there are misused concepts,abused labels and a lack of historical review in such polemics.The interpretation,subsumption and determination are three different concepts which can not be confused.In terms of grounds for criminal liability,it is not advisable to simply fix labels of"formal"or"substantial".In combination with the act that"substantial"has different meanings of"one in terms of legislation"and"one in terms of judicial practice",such abused labels have caused many misunderstandings.To continue the use of terms of literal interpretation and teleological interpretation and recognize the priority of literal interpretation over teleological interpretation will obviously alleviate the misunderstanding caused by the polemic.Another reason for the enlarged misunderstanding due to the polemic is the shortage of attention on the historical events.The analyses of the history of doctrines in the 20th century can not only make the aforesaid two defects clear but also help confirm the limiting meaning enjoyed by the polemic:the formal interpretation doctrine is a little stricter in the face of the margin of literal meaning,and its account of criminal means and the amendment to the new classic system makes it be different from the substantial interpretation doctrine and enjoy partial form of the doctrine of wrongdoing of person in the 20th century.
Formal InterpretationSubstantial InterpretationLiteral InterpretationTeleological Interpretationthe Doctrine of Wrongdoing of Person
万方数据
维普
