The Legal Interpretation From The Perspective Of Consequentialism

Consequentialism is such a concept: consequence is the center of behaviors;some behavior should be chose or not and some behavior is correct or not also base onconsequences. Consequentialism is in the scope of utilitarianism ethics. Because of theshortage of traditional legal interpretation, the article tries to introduce theconsequentialism of ethics into interpretation of law. The concept of legalconsequentialism is interpreting law in the core of consequences, namely consequenceexplanation. The innovation of this article lies in the practical rational spirit accordingto China put forward a kind of legal thinking from fruit to cause.Conventional interpreting methods are weak in explaining target and explainingfactors, so the aim of consequence explanation is exploring which explanation fitscurrent social relations and values mostly. The explanation should firstly considerlawmaker’s intentions, but also should regard current special background. Judges canmake decisions better than lawmaker’s intentions, not limited to legal objectivepurpose by consequence explaining. In order to exploring which explanation fitscurrent social relations and values mostly, we can pursue the purpose of explanationthough using one explaining factor or some explaining factors at the same time. Inaddition, we can conclude which factor is better or worse by consequence evaluation.When explaining law, it is must be noticed that whether judicial power will destroylegislative power. Because there are many different legislative purposes, theexplanation of law will also different. Judges can choose consequence explanation tostrengthen persuasiveness, and choose such explanation of law which is more fitted tocurrent social relations and values.Chinese emphasize practical rationalism, so the method of thinking guided byconsequences got development.The article try to divide consequences into threecategories from different angles and according to different standard: legalconsequences and fact consequences; direct consequences and indirect consequences;internal consequences and external consequences. The consequence in consequenceexplanation should be limited to fact consequences and external consequences. Asidefrom that, there is no general limiting standard to the concept of consequence. However, this doesn’t mean considering all possible fact consequences and externalconsequences, instead, the consequence in consequence explanation should be moreimportant and probable consequence.Consequence explanation can be divided into five steps: delimiting the scope ofconsequence application; finding consequences; forecasting consequences; evaluatingconsequences; consequences choice. The purpose of delimiting the scope ofconsequence application is assuring the applicable effectiveness of law and defendingthe binding principle of law. Finding consequences, is seeking important consequenceswith the help of other social science after stating the application fields. Forecastingconsequences means calculations to selected fact consequence before, in order to judgewhich is more important and possible. Evaluating consequences means makingevaluation to the possible consequences before. At last, the aim of consequenceschoice is selecting the one most fitted to the standard.As a method of interpreting law, consequence explanation is not accepted bypeople normally. Because of its political feature, consequence explanation arecriticized strongly by scholars.This mainly includes three reasons: Ⅰ，Threateningthe certainty of law and leading to Legal nihilism.But the meaning of consequenceexplanation is the objectify of evaluations, so just when there are many possibleinterpretations of law, and after general interpreting it still needs more interpretations,consequence explanation will effect. Ⅱ， Resulting in complicated results. Butconsequence explanation just points to the more important and possible consequence,so it will not resulting in complicated results.Ⅲ， Violating constitutional spirit.Whether when there are many possible interpretations, or when interpreting law,consequence explanation doesn’t expand judge’s discretion, so it doesn’t violateconstitutional spirit. Ⅳ，Disobeying judicial functions. Though consequence guidingof law is impossible, it is necessary. Consequence explanation will improve systemvariation, but the system will also make surplus to balance. So it doesn’t rebel judicialfunctions.Consequence explanation really has rationality: Ⅰ，Consequence explanationsatisfies Chinese practical reason.Ⅱ, Consequence explanation can be proved corrector not. It improves its reason though publishing evaluation basis and estimating consequence, so it sticks to the rational criticism.Ⅲ, Consequence explanation satisfiesthe social requirements of judicial activism. When Judicial institutions express itsjudicial activism, its explanation is inclined to responding the current social reality andthe new tendency of social evolution, not limited in old statute law or precedent toavoiding the unreasonable consequence. So, judicial activism means creating andadding law through interpretation.So, consequence explanation is reasonable. It makes up the shortage oftraditional law methodology, fits the new requirements of social development, and hasmaneuverability in practice. When there are many explanations of law or there arelegal loopholes, consequence explanation should be considered a method ofinterpreting to choose the best scheme of legal interpretation.