On Legislative Technical Problems In The Specific Provision Of Criminal Law In China

Under the legal principle of crime and punishment, clarity is one of specificrequirements of criminal legislation technology. However, the realization ofclarity of China’s specific provision of the criminal law legislative technology stillexists. In our country’s specific provision of the criminal law, this gap is mainlymanifested in two technical defects, the one is the criminal law’s structuretechnology, the other one is the criminal law’s expressive technology. This two kindsof legal technical flaws can be clearly unified to the subject of the criminallaw legislative technology–the criminal law established on the division ofoffences. The criminal law that we say today is the classification of crimesimplemented into in the criminal code. Therefore, in the criminal law, the legislationtechnology’s defect is naturally extended to the classification of crimes on this issue.China’s criminal law legislative technology can be in the basic character set, thesystem structure, expression. In fact, these fatal flaws can wholely be the lack ofclarity. Furthermore, the lack of clarity of criminal law should be the lack of theclarity of division of offences.Bentham’s division of offences had established a good beginning for theacheivement to clarity. Bentham has a utilitarian perspective, and he attempted toconstruct a classification method for something small but complete. The classificationof crime belonged to one of his exploration of classification method. Bentham firmlygrasped the main line of the utility principle, and used the scientific classification.The classification of crimes tended to be understood and be exhaustive; its purpose isto realize the basic value idea of criminal law, and to establish the crime that headvocated the unity of taxonomy. From the perspective of practice, the constructionof division of offences in the rational and scientific basis, were successfully open tothe mainland legal system country’s criminal law, and made the clarity beexplicit codification, legalprecedent.Combined with the Bentham’s division of offences, the author thinks that we can successfully improve the specific provision of criminal law legislativetechnique, and realize the value of the specific provision of criminal law, namely inthe structure technology of the criminal law, our country can improve thebasic character set technology, and establish a scientific criminal legislationtechnolical concept. And we can establish clear criteria for technology in legislation.According to the nature of the act to determine the scope of the crime, and in theconcrete structure, we can do something else to the goal that personalinterests preference, sub system is scientific, the unification of crime division. Thecriminal law’s expression technology can be improved to the unification of clarity andflexibility, the unification of specific language and public language. The final basiccharacter is set to the clartiy throughout the criminal law; the concrete structuretechnology is in order to realize the clarity of the specific provision of criminallaw structure; the improvement of language expression is ultimately to achievethe specific provision of criminal law of language use. Therefore, the ultimate goalof criminal law legislative technique is the clarity of criminal law. Bentham’sclassification of crime can provides some enlightenment for the perfection of china’scriminal law legislative technology more or less. The author hopes that by in-depth interpretation of Bentham’s division of offences, we can promote theperfection of criminal law legislative technology in China, so as to realize the clarityof the specific provision of criminal law.