At 14:00 on November 17, 2023, Professor Jiang Tao of the School of Criminal Law of East China University of Political Science and Law was invited to give a lecture entitled Four Key Issues of Criminal Law Interpretation for the students and faculty of the School of Law, with Professor Ouyang Benqi, Dean of the School of Law of Southeast University, acting as the moderator.

Before the beginning of the lecture, Prof. Ouyang Benqi expressed his warm welcome and sincere thanks to the lecturer Prof. Jiang Tao, and gave a brief introduction to Prof. Jiang Tao.

At the beginning of the lecture, Prof. Jiang Tao pointed out that the interpretation of criminal law is the most critical issue in both legal practice and theoretical research, and today's lecture mainly focuses on the four key issues of criminal law interpretation. First of all, Prof. Jiang Tao clarified that the four key issues of criminal law interpretation are goal, method, argumentation and standard. During the past seminars, Prof. Jiang Tao believed that criminal law always has an entertainment value today, because hot cases always attract high attention from the society, and every citizen can express his/her opinion about the cases on the internet, which also brings research inspiration to our colleagues who study criminal law. Taking Xu Ting's case as an example, the illegal acquisition of property caused by the malfunctioning of ATMs must involve the positioning of the interpretation of criminal law. From the heated discussion of this case, Prof. Jiang Tao pointed out that if the interpretation of criminal law keeps changing perspectives, then different interpretative conclusions will be reached.

In the process of formally discussing the key issues, Prof. Jiang Tao first talked about the goal of criminal law interpretation. Prof. Jiang Tao suggests that in the past, the appropriateness and justice of criminal law interpretation were often used to indicate the goal of criminal law interpretation, but this has an imperfect side. According to Prof. Jiang Tao, the goal of criminal law interpretation has three levels, the first level is for individual cases, and the first goal is the goal of justice. The second level is inter-case, where synergy must be achieved between different cases. The third dimension, which Prof. Jiang Tao focuses on, is whether we can play a role at the extra-case level through individual cases to lead individuals, society and the public to the good and to clarify the ideals of social development. Taking the death penalty issue as an example, the theoretical circles are now advocating the abolition of the death penalty from the legislative perspective, but in fact we can also shape a society without the death penalty through the judicial perspective. In addition, in the lightening of penalties, this is also an ideal that we are shaping in the process of interpretation, which is different from the previous attitude of cracking down. We can set a goal of goodness for the legislature, the judiciary, and the general public through judicial decisions, which is something we should emphasize in our legal practice.

In the second part, Prof. Jiang Tao mainly taught about the understanding of criminal law interpretation methods. Prof. Jiang Tao analyzed the dispute between formal and substantive interpretations. The basic position of formal interpretation is to formally incriminate and substantively incriminate, to incriminate in strict accordance with the literal meaning of the criminal law and to implement the law of criminal punishment, and to incriminate by taking into account the legal reasoning, reasoning, and custom. The basic position of the substantive interpretation theory is to incriminate in substance, and at the same time, to exonerate in substance. The consensus between the formal interpretation theory and the substantive interpretation theory is to substantially incriminate, and the disagreement is whether it is possible to substantially incriminate. According to Prof. Jiang Tao, there is nothing wrong with formal incrimination and substantive incrimination, but the key question is whether the requirement of clarity of criminal law is fulfilled, which has not been deeply explained by scholars of both sides in the past discussions. Prof. Jiang Tao believes that, according to the concept of the rule of law, we must adopt the position of empirical jurisprudence on the issue of incrimination, insisting on the form of incrimination; however, we can rely on the position of natural jurisprudence on the crime, taking into account the substance of the jurisprudence and reasoning content. Take the crime of throwing objects from a height as an example, in the original draft of the Criminal Law Amendment (XI), it was put in the crime of endangering public security, because the previous judicial interpretation recognized it as the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods. However, Mr. Zhang Mingkai criticized this type of practice, and eventually made the crime of throwing objects from a height a crime of obstructing administrative order, and many cases of endangering public security by dangerous methods should not be recognized as crimes at all. Similar problems may arise when examining cases of endangering precious and endangered wildlife. For these cases, the principle of mitigating both the old and the new misdemeanor, the relevant behavior will be recognized as a newly created misdemeanor, obviously does not meet the requirements, should be acquitted.

In the third part, Prof. Jiang Tao mainly elaborated on the argumentation of criminal law interpretation. Prof. Jiang Tao pointed out that, in terms of the argumentation of criminal law interpretation, there is a tendency for us to give equal importance to purposive argumentation and constitutionality in criminal law interpretation today. The so-called purposive argumentation refers to the pursuit of the normative purpose of criminal law, criminal law value and so on. In today's world of abstraction and spiritualization of legal interests, the concept of legal interests exists because of the requirement of carrying out the purpose of criminal law. In the interpretation of the concept, if one only understands the text, it may lead to legalism and mechanical justice, which may result in the interpretation conclusion of lawful but unreasonable. There is nothing wrong with focusing on the external, but certainly not on the internal. The purpose of criminal law includes not only legal interests, but also other social values and rationale. If there is still a conflict in the interpretation of the purpose of the theory, we can further consider the argument of constitutionality, that is, in the interpretation of criminal law in pursuit of the spirit and purpose of the Constitution. To hit-and-run aggravated penalty provisions, for example, Professor Jiang Tao that if the escape to the death of the aggravated penalty, is no problem, because the protection of the victim's life and health interests; but if the escape to aggravate the penalty, there is no reason, there are unconstitutional factors. Prof. Jiang Tao further talked about the legal interest protection level and the problem of criminal law interpretation. In the interpretation of criminal law, first of all, we should consider whether there is any real legal interest, and secondly, we should consider whether there is any value in the protection of legal interest. In the hierarchy of legal interest protection, there is a difference in the degree of importance of legal interest protection, and personal legal interest is more important than property legal interest. Personal legal benefit should be appropriate to strengthen an incriminating explanation, in the encounter between crime and non-crime in the tipping point of the explanation should be strictly out of the crime, while in the property legal benefit, taking into account the status quo of China's economic and social development, the property legal benefit should be loose out of the crime.

In the fourth part, Prof. Jiang Tao mainly discusses the standard of criminal law interpretation. Prof. Jiang Tao advocates that in the present time, we should consider the turn of criminal law interpretation. Prof. Jiang Tao suggests that all the theories we have advocated in the past are intended to guide and regulate judicial practice, so that subjective understanding can influence objective practice, which is called subjective objectivity. At the same time, the previous interpretation also emphasizes inter-subjectivity, such as plea bargaining cases, in fact, according to the content of the plea agreement for adjudication. Therefore, in the hermeneutic turn, in the face of inter-subjectivity and inevitable value judgment, one's value judgment can not be imposed on others, and ultimately must reach a consensus, which is a method of judicial access to the controversy. Professor Jiang Tao to Yu Huan case as a force to further elaborate, if from the substantive point of view to explain the unlawful and responsible, then the unlawful is the law prohibited and permitted boundaries, there is no so-called ultra-regulation of the illegal blocking cause; but from the level of responsible, it is indeed necessary to consider whether the punishment with a criminal punishment is consistent with the national situation and public opinion or common sense, common sense, common sense, and therefore can be recognized as ultra-regulation of the responsibility of the blocking cause.

Prof. Li Chuan, the discussant, firstly recommended to read Prof. Jiang Tao's paper Value Judgment of Criminal Law Interpretation published in China Social Science. He believed that Prof. Jiang Tao's lecture inspired us that judicial officers have to consider certain value judgment when encountering similar cases. Prof. Li Chuan also believes that Prof. Jiang Tao's theory of intersubjectivity provides a new line of thought on how value judgment can be integrated into the doctrinal system.

The discussant, Prof. Liang Yunbao, argued that different identities in interpretation may affect the conclusion of interpretation, for example, the question of whether an over-standard electric car can be interpreted as a motor vehicle. Prof. Liang Yunbao believes that many of Prof. Jiang Tao's views are exactly what many practitioners need.

The whole lecture was clear and informative, and won the warm applause of the teachers and students present. Prof. Jiang Tao's teaching on the key issues of criminal law interpretation was incisive and cited, which made the students understand the theory of criminal law interpretation more deeply. The lecture was a complete success.