谈及类推，刑法学界普遍认可“禁止类推”这一原则。实际上“禁止类推”这一命题过于笼统和模糊，以至于几乎每个国家都有刑法权威学者对该命题持保留态度。刑法适用过程中的“类推”具有两种面相———作为漏洞填补方法的类推适用和作为法律适用基本方法的类推思维，前者应被刑法禁止，而后者却是刑法适用中无法禁止的推理方法。这两种类推之间的区别，实质上就是一种“度”的把握，而将“度”界定为刑法规范目的指导下的犯罪类型更具有操作性。另外，既然刑法中两面性的类比推理足以囊括刑法适用中的全部类推，那么摒弃“类推解释”这一充满争议的概念更为合理。%When it comes to analogy, the circle of criminal law generally recognize"prohibition of analogy"as a principle, although there are some authoritative scholars in almost every country still keeping conservative attitude as a result of its being too general and vague.In the application of Criminal Law,"analogy"has two faces—ana-logical application, which should be banned in criminal law, is a way to fill loopholes;analogical thinking, which is applicable in criminal law reasoning and can not be prohibited, is a basic method of applying law.The difference between them, in essence, lies in the"degree"of certainty, and it is more operational if the"degree"is defined by the type of crime under the purpose of criminal law.In addition, since the two sides of analogical reasoning are sufficient to include all the analogy in the criminal law application, it will be more reasonable if we abandon the controversial concept-"analogical interpretation".
展开▼
