| In the eyes of most Chinese scholars, criminal law interpretation methods are hierarchical to some extent. This specious view, however, is not only of very limited practical significance, but also contradictory to judicial logic. The fact that textual interpretation is at the starting point of interpretation does not mean that it is a decisive interpretation method. Textual interpretation has a multitude of limitations, requiring verification and validation by systematic interpretation and teleological interpretation. Systematic interpretation can hardly be separated from teleological interpretation. The functions of objective teleological interpretation are multifaceted: it should have priority only when teleological contraction is applied, and it should not be considered as always being decisive. Subjective interpretation constitutes a part of teleological interpretation, and it brings in a special value only in terms of providing legislative materials of impunity. In the process of trial and error as well as that of consultation of criminal law interpretation, various interpretation methods should be applied "as it requires", that is, the decision on which method should be applied depends on the judgment on the necessity of penalty, and the choice of interpretation method is an outcome of the judgment previously made, providing an ex post facto footnote to the judges' decision on criminality. It is more meaningful to focus on the complexity of judicial process and the formation process of judicial practical logic than to explore the hierarchy of criminal law interpretation methods, to meticulously construct various application rules of interpretation methods than to rank those different methods, and to study factors that really affect the application criminal law. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号