| 摘要: |
| 刑法的法典化或者再法典化必须贯彻罪刑法定之刑法明确性原则，核心刑法条文一般应以非专业人士能够理解的语言进行表达，也即刑法典设置构成要件使用的字句所表达文义须符合该字句的“通常含义”。同时，司法解释不能跳出刑法条文文义设定的框架。关于刑法文义之内涵界定，应区分“可能含义”与“通常含义”。司法解释一般情况下不应突破刑法条文的“通常含义”，即使存在惩罚必要性，也不能突破“可能含义”。鉴于对“可能含义”与“通常含义”的判定存在固有的障碍，为了提升刑法典条文的可理解性以及刑法典条文“文义”对司法解释限制的透明度，在确定“可能含义”与“通常含义”时，应适时地引入法律语料库语言学技术，增强“可能含义”与“通常含义”判断过程中的可视化说理，以此提升立法的科学性以及司法解释创设过程中的说理性与客观性。 |
| 关键词: 刑法法典化 司法解释 可能含义 通常含义 法律语料库技术 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:山东省“泰山学者工程专项经费”（项目编号： tsqn202306038）及山东大学人文社会科学创新团队资助项目“全面依法治国战略实施中的数据运用与数据治理创新团队” |
|
| Legal Corpus Technology and Intelligent-Assisted Determination of Criminal Law Semantic Boundaries |
|
Jiang Haiyang
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| The codification or recodification of criminal law must implement the principle of clarity in criminal law of the legality principle. The core provisions of criminal law should generally be expressed in language that can be understood by non professionals, that is, the meaning of the words used to set the constituent elements of the criminal code must conform to the “ordinary meaning” of the words. At the same time, judicial interpretation cannot go beyond the framework set by the meaning of criminal law provisions. Regarding the definition of the connotation of the meaning of criminal law, a distinction should be made between the “possible meaning” and the “usual meaning”. Judicial interpretation should not generally go beyond the “usual meaning” of the criminal law provisions, and even if there is a need for punishment, it should not go beyond the “possible meaning”. Given the inherent obstacles in determining the “possible meaning” and the “usual meaning”, it is imperative to enhance the comprehensibility of provisions of the Criminal Code and the transparency of the restrictions imposed by the “text” of the Criminal Code on judicial interpretation. To achieve this, linguistic techniques from the legal corpus should be introduced in a timely manner when determining the “possible meaning” and “usual meaning” to enhance the visual reasoning in the process of determining the “possible meaning” and “usual meaning”, thereby improving the scientific nature of legislation and the rationality and objectivity of the process of creating judicial interpretation. |
| Key words: Codification of Criminal Law, Judicial Interpretation, Possible Meaning, Usual Meaning, Legal Corpus Technology |
