Study On The Functions Of Chinese Interpretations Of Criminal Law

As an important reflection of national lawmaking power and judicial power,Chinese criminal interpretations are superior in number to the Criminal Code itselfand applied and inspected in criminal law practice continuously. Behind theseinterpretations a problem is brought up—how to define the functions of interpretationsto criminal law? What missions should criminal interpretation and legislationundertake respectively? How to choose the standpoint of criminal interpretationsbasing on value selections, balanced interests and objective considerations so that thefunctions of criminal interpretations can operate positively and achieve their goals?Can Chinese-style criminal interpretation mode function properly as what it deserves?Those are most important problems in the study of interpretations to criminal law andthat’s why we research the functions of Chinese authoritative interpretations tocriminal law.The mode of Chinese criminal interpretations that is explained by pluralisticsubjects is abstract, which expresses itself as decentralized power, documentedformats, abstract contents and legal effects. Our study begins with security andoperability of interpretations’ functions, holds the precondition that interpretations tocriminal law are approaches and bonds between criminal legislation and legalapplication, aims at due operation of criminal interpretations in the system andapproaches through the empirical analysis of “from experience to theory”. The authordiscusses the functions of criminal interpretations respectively from empirical analysis,foundation, endogenous factors, external factors, characteristic explanations andcomplement of system in order to provide intellectual support for positive operationsof criminal interpretations’ functions in our institutional framework.The study on defining functions of Chinese interpretations to criminal law is asummarized theoretical analysis based on empirical research upon current effectiveinterpretations. According to the different descriptions, interpretations to criminal law can be divided into interpretation by samples, interpretation by explanations andinterpretation by fixing positions. Through application and emphasis on these threedescriptive interpretation techniques we can grasp the tendency of dispersion andconcentration which is reflected by the flow direction and distribution ofinterpretation resources. That can provide factual basis for defining the functions ofcriminal interpretations. Under the goal of “rights of legislation belonging tolegislative bodies and rights of interpretation belonging to interpretive bodies” we candefine the functions of criminal interpretations into three fields: activating thelegislation, applying for judicature and responding to the needs of society.Legislation of criminal law is the foundation and precondition of functions ofcriminal interpretations. The division of legislation function and interpretationfunction is a conclusion as it is based on the empirical analysis of interpretation text.Legislation and interpretation undertake different missions: the former delineatescircle of crime and the latter clears the border of this circle. The former creates “crimeor noncrime”,“this crime or that crime” and the latter makes the line between crimeand noncrime accurate. However, these two depend on each other. Interpretationexists because of legislation and legislation is alive because of interpretation. Thedivision of different functions of legislation and interpretation keeps criminalinterpretation out of the field of legislation. And the implement of “principle of alegally prescribed punishment for a specified crime” makes legislation manifest andlimits the powers and functions of interpretations on the basis of function division.Criminal interpretations inherit the original intentions of legislation, which incarnatesthe legislative intent through interpretations in judicial practice.Standpoint of criminal interpretation is endogenous for functions ofinterpretations to criminal law. Different positions of interpreters lead to differentconclusions directly and will influence the facts whether criminal interpretationsfunction safely and validly within the framework of “legally prescribed punishmentfor a specified crime”. How to understand the principle of “a legally prescribedpunishment for a specified crime” springs up two current standpoints of criminalinterpretations in China, which are formal interpretation theory and substantive interpretation theory. On this stage of developing and perfecting ideas and process ofChinese rule of law, the theory of formal interpretation plays more important role tosupport the principle than the theory of substantive interpretation. Under the premiseof sufficient semantic interpretation, the theory of formal interpretation is thefoundation and the theory of substantive interpretation is the exception. Which theoryshould we choose also depends on the border of extensive interpretation andanalogical interpretation. The reason why “principle of a legally prescribedpunishment for a specified crime” opposes analogy is that it might bring aboutinjustice and abuse of judicial power, but not against the method itself. The analogy infavor of the defendant could be permitted restrainedly.Criminal policies are external factors of criminal interpretations’ functions. Theprinciple of “a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime” limits the borderof semantic interpretation, while criminal policies regulate and orient resources ofcriminal interpretations. Criminal policies grasp the heart of interpretation functions,which is just the reflection of social needs. By the guidance and regulation of criminalpolicies, criminal interpretations can give a rational explanation to the criminal lawversion that should be in line with policies of temper justice with mercy. Criminalinterpretation tending to policies also embodies value judgments on criminal policies.Interpretations to criminal law have independent character referring to those policieswhich do not meet the requirements of the rule of law.The creative mode of legislative interpretation is a Chinese–style function ofcriminal interpretations. There are three functions as to legislative interpretations. Thefunction of solving principle divergence between the Supreme People’s Court and theSupreme People’s Procuratorate reflects its legislative nature. The functions ofclearing legal meanings and determining legal basis reflect its interpretive nature. Thelegislative nature is the unique functions differing from judicial interpretation, whichis just the value of this institution. Through the analysis of13legislative interpretationtexts and corresponding draft, we could conclude that the contents of legislativeinterpretation should focus on the functions of legislative nature in the future so that itcan be limited purposely and drew a line between legislative and judicial interpretations.As an abstract interpretive institution, the system of criminal interpretation hasan impassable chasm. The functions of criminal interpretation are limited because thesystem can not be self-sufficient. Criminal ruling cases being brought into system ofcriminal interpretation at the right moment would be an important supplement andundertake some missions out of strength of criminal interpretation. The nature ofChinese future criminal precedent will be a special form of interpretations to criminallaw. Authoritative interpretations to criminal law include normative interpretationsand individual case interpretations and criminal precedent belongs to the latter. Withthe development of Chinese future criminal justice and during the process of changingfrom ruling case to precedent, some parts of reserved spaces for interpretations inlegal texts could be filled by precedents. The enactments of Chinese ruling cases haveplayed significant role in stipulating the application and universality of interpretationsto criminal law. However, there would be a long way for establishing the system ofinterpretations to precedents.