论文部分内容阅读
与概念思维相比,类型思维呈现出要素(构成要件)组合上的灵活性与开放性,能使法律有效应对复杂多变的现实生活。类型思维要求刑法解释者在解释刑法时不断回到法律背后的类型,做出合类型的判断。但是由于对类型的理解不同,刑法学者们在解释立场的选择上出现了主观与客观的对立。从各自的方法论上看,两种方法都有长处,也都有不足,因而在类型思维中都不能当然地享有优先性。正确的做法应当是将其各自的解释结论(得出的“法律类型”)平等对待,置于“同类事物同类评价,不同事物不同评价”这一正义原则下进行理性对谈、比较,得出最佳结论。
Compared with the concept of thinking, type of thinking presents a combination of elements (elements) of the flexibility and openness, enabling the law to effectively deal with complex and changeable real life. Type of thinking requires criminal law interpreters in the interpretation of criminal law continue to return to the type of law behind to make the same type of judgment. However, due to the different understanding of the types, criminal law scholars appear in the choice of interpretation of the subjective and objective opposition. From their methodological point of view, both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, and therefore can not naturally be given priority in type thinking. The correct approach should be to treat each of their own interpretation conclusions (derived from the “legal type”) equally and put it under the just principle of “similar things of the same kind and different things of different kinds” Comparison, come to the best conclusion.