Professor Xiao Zhonghua Delivered a Lecture at the 60th Professors Salon about Analysis of Improper Penal Law Application in Judicial Practice
On July 8th, 2015, the 60th
Professors Salon of Renmin Law School was successfully conducted in Mingde Law
Building. The salon was themed as ‘Analysis of Improper Penal Law Application
in Judicial Practice’, mainly spoken by Professor Xiao Zhonghua and hosted by
Associate Professor Shi Yan’an. Dean Han Dayuan with other scholars and
students also attended the salon.
Professor firstly aired his opinion about knowledge
of communication problems between theory of criminal law and judicial practice
because of lacking criminal law theory except for some human interventions,
neither would they realized its significance for most people and in most
occasions. On one hand, theoretical cycles partly recreated by themselves
without keeping a watchful eye on practice; on the other hands, professional
circles could not applied knowledge in proper occasions. Professor Xiao
indicated that the application of penal law was actually the interpretation of
the law. To be specific, there were mainly four issues.
to society should be main factor of crimes. Professor Xiao applied cases
like identification problems of crime of illegal business operations to
interpret that criminal law application should examine criminal Illegality
instead of hazard to society. Hazard to society normally guided criminal
Whether regulations as legally
prescribed punishment for a specified crime and strict interpretation could be criminal
law interpretation. Professor Xiao indicated that it is understandable to
stress modest and restrained principle of criminal law in theory while there
was no meaning in judicial practice to apply these theories. The core of
criminal law application was revealing what was legal, thus these regulations
could not provide technical support. It was the same with strict interpretation
because it was not beneficial to the defendant as well.
How to comprehend ‘nullum
crimen sine lege no crime ithout a la’. Professor Xiao thought that ‘nullum
crimen sine lege no crime ithout a la’ was no equal to ‘crime could not be
declared without specific regulation’. He applied absichtsdelikte as instance
to claim that public prosecution organ should provide different evidence
because absichtsdelikte included dominant type and recessive type.
How to understand essential
feature and constitutive requirement of crime. Professor Xiao thought that constitutive
requirement of crime was specific, which meant that lacking of normal criminal
feature did not equal to lacking of constitutive requirement.
After Professor Xiao’s report, scholars and
students raised up their questions and got detailed answers. The salon ended
with warm applause.
(Editor: Cheng Zeya)