Two positions under the criminal law concept of ju ? g2185045

 Abstract: Criminal Justice explained the use of criminal law is of great significance. Judicial interpretation of criminal law standards are not uniform along ????? have the legislative intent that the compromise that objective needs to be said with three kinds of paper through a comparative analysis of the various standards that the construction of rule of law in China today, Criminal Law judicial interpretation of legislative intent that should be standard, so as to protect human rights, the real implementation of the principle of legality. 
How to measure the rationality of judicial interpretation and accuracy? All these are related to criminal law standards of judicial interpretation, and judicial interpretation of criminal law standard which is the judicial interpretation of criminal law related to the concept as a guide. Different positions, leading to a different view of the judicial interpretation of criminal law to write papers, and thus have different standards of judicial interpretation. This paper will analyze several different standards of comparison,affliction clothing wholesale, and then put forward to explain China's current criminal justice standards should be adhered to. 
One or two positions under the criminal law concept of judicial interpretation of a criminal classical school of crime and criminal empirical school study different starting point, leading to two schools of thought on various issues in criminal law there are various differences, it is reflected in the criminal law on the concept of judicial interpretation, is the strict interpretation of doctrine and the free interpretation of doctrine. 
Strict interpretation of doctrine. Criminal classical school for protection of human rights, good at the right against arbitrary, in the beginning resolutely opposed to criminal law, judicial interpretation, advocated an absolute principle of legality, crime and punishment that is required by law to be absolutely sure, this is essentially a strict , not the principle of arbitrary choice or alternative. The judiciary and judicial staff to enforce the law only passive, without any discretionary powers. Such as Beccaria believes that compliance with the law, the conclusion is freedom or punishment. become law. This thinking, the development of guilt in criminal law, the principle should be adopted stating counts, absolute certainty demanded punishment for the punishment to oppose flexibility counts. Because it counts for stating the characteristics of criminal behavior to specific requirements, can not do any explanation, upon conviction, to criminal law only counts as a conviction under the standard, so that we can implement the principle of legality. However, the phenomenon of crime is extremely complex, requiring the provision stating the characteristics of crime counts, not give it a certain flexibility, will hardly be summed up in which all of the crime, is not conducive to the maintenance of social security, old school academics with the social development, gradually modify their individualism based on the principle of legality, flexibility counts gradually increased to determine the legal nature of the relatively gradually been adopted, the old school scholars also believe that judges should be given a certain interpretation, advocated a strict interpretation of doctrine to legislative intent as the standard for judicial interpretation. 
Free interpretation of doctrine. Late 19th century Europe, gradually from the free competition monopoly unprecedented intense class contradictions, recidivism, juvenile offenders and other growing criminal classical school of criminal law theory flaws frequently, say, breaking weak state, no longer meet the needs of crime-fighting, the situation is positive school should be students, however. Its based on the purpose of punishment, criminal investigation by the offender's dangerousness, to establish the theoretical basis of subjective theory of the criminal law system, the crime outside of the state as a dangerous, dangerous level of penalties is determined by the size of the state . As a guide, they advocate criminal counts should be flexible guilt-based, so as to have greater flexibility. Gives judges free interpretation, either broadly interpreted, but also narrow interpretation, which can accommodate the complexities of various types of crime, to adapt to the changing situation, to achieve justice and the law of value. Therefore, the empirical school of criminal doctrine advocating freedom of interpretation, allowing judges to the need for objective criteria for free interpretation. 
Second, the criminal law standard of judicial interpretation ????? because there are two diametrically opposite interpretation of criminal law concept, leading to the criminal law as a guide judicial interpretation of the different standards were produced with the legislative intent that objective requires that two criteria. 
Said the legislative intent. Also known as subjective to say that its basic position is that criminal law should aim to clarify the interpretation of criminal legislation meaning legislators, all the interpretation of legislative intent beyond the criminal law is illegal, and therefore, criminal law, legal or judicial interpretation of the standards is the accuracy of the legislators expressed the meaning of legislation. That for the latter part of the classical school of criminal advocate, the reason is: a legislative act is the meaning of the legislators act, lawmakers passed legislation to express their views and attempts, through the law to achieve social objectives pursued, the legal interpretation of these purposes that should be reflected. 2 is a meaning of the legislators can make use of legislative history of literature to ascertain the facts, as long as history tends to be able to ascertain that the intention, trial or judicial decisions will not be elusive, which can guarantee the certainty of law . 3 based on the principle of separation of powers, judicial ruling or decision shall be in accordance with law, the law only by the legislature to develop. Therefore, the meaning of the legislators should be the decisive factor in the application of the law, legal interpretation should be to explore the meaning of the legislators as the goal. ? Thus, the legislative intent that the legal basis for the emphasis on the security value and protection of human rights functions. 
Objective needs to be said. Also known as the objective, said that its basic position is that criminal law aims to clarify the interpretation of the interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Code has shown an objective meaning, not when legislators enact criminal law given the subjective meaning of the provisions of the Criminal Code. For example Garling that the interpretation of the law should be allowed to matter is inevitable in such situations should be allowed to judge according to justice, conscience and wisdom shining supplement the laws function ?. The legislators did not exist. Legal drafting, development through a variety of organs, these organs is no consensus, and their respective views are often vague, making it difficult to determine in the end what is the meaning of legislators and legislators. 2 law has developed, it established its legal thinking, and with the legislators out of the relationship, as an objective reality. 3 Legal and legislators do not mean the same thing. As a basis to hear cases from the legal norms are often issued simultaneously or successively in different sections of the law, provisions of removal or summarized. Judge the case is not simply extracted from the existing provisions of law as the basis, then you can decide cases, but there is a finding of law and process them together. 4 insist on an objective that can make interpretation of the law to adapt to changing realities, to achieve additional function of law interpretation of the law, help to improve the certainty of law. If the legal interpretation of the meaning of the legislators as a benchmark, people had to resort to ordinary people hard to reach numerous cumbersome legislative information, people will be overwhelmed by information, not found in the law ?. Objective requirements of Criminal Justice explained that the task is possible in the law several semantic interpretation, the purpose of selection is now the most co-interpretation, that is, to adapt to the needs of objective social reality, in order to achieve fair value of law and protection of social machine 
Third, the above resolution of both criminal law standard of judicial interpretation of the standards have some validity, but they split on one end, and inevitably biased. Legislative intent of the legislative intent that the presence of stress, focusing on criminal law and the protection function of the security value, which is its should be in the affirmative. First, the legislative intent is an objective reality, although it is sometimes difficult to determine, but the legislative intent, after all, by law and reflected in the text, and thus its interpretation in terms of who is objective. Furthermore, according to legislative intent, said to explain the criminal law, criminal law will help ensure the stability, to maintain the dignity of the Criminal Code, the interpretation of the law would not destroy the structure, thus the stability and predictability in the law to protect human rights, realization of the security law value. But criminal law has a double value and safety and fair protection of human rights and social protection double performance, and stick to the legislative intent that the legislative intent, paranoid and stressed the value of the legal protection of the safety function, thus ignoring the law and protect the fair value of the function, the capacity of the human reason is too high expectations, the paper prepared and provided by the net worry-free papers 12

Source: http://g2185045.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/two-positions-under-the-criminal-law-concept-of-ju/

mmi reba mcentire archer elizabeth banks cate blanchett holly madison resume examples