| The differences between qualitative research and quantitative analysis and between normative science and factual science are only superficial differences between dogmatics of criminal law and empirical research of criminal law, which cover up the intrinsic values of these two. The rationality assumptions of positive law and that of the collective experience of empirical legal research are both relative. Therefore, there is no fundamental opposition between them and it is possible to study the dogmatics of criminal law with the method of empirical research. Dogmatics of criminal law and empirical research of criminal law are unified in practical rationality, meet in a large sample of criminal law cases, and intersect in the validity of law. Neither the empirical criminal law research without dogmatics nor the criminal law dogmatics without empirical research is conducive to the comprehensive development of criminal law research in China. The most extreme evil is the crime of illegally depriving another person’s life and the most extreme negative social evaluation is the criminal punishment of depriving the offender’s life. These two deprivations are the boundaries of all other deprivations. Therefore, the application of the death penalty in homicide cases is “the first piece of domino” in Chinese criminal law. Taking the criminal penalty dogmatics research of near 80,000 death penalty cases as an example, this paper shows that the empirical research of criminal dogmatics is a descriptive criticism of a large sample of criminal law phenomenon, including the dogmatic empirical research of criminal theories, of criminal law provisions and of criminal justice practices. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号