立法論與解釋論的順位之爭——以收買被拐賣的婦女罪為例

Disputes over the Order of Legislation and Interpretation: Taking the Crime of Buying Abducted Women as an Example

當法律的適用結果存疑時，應優先更新解釋論而非啟動立法論。未窮盡現行法的解釋空間之前不輕言修法，是法教義學及其背後的法治立場的基本要求。隨著時代變遷，嚴懲收買被拐賣的婦女犯罪的民意籲求具有正當性。在理論上將收買被拐賣的婦女罪解釋為強姦罪、非法拘禁罪、傷害罪等後續犯罪的預備犯，特別是在實踐中把握住收買型強姦與普通強姦之間的差異，有利於降低證明難度，實現數罪並罰。當報應刑的正義性可以被解釋論滿足時，修法的理由就只剩下能否顯著提高預防效果。但是，收買被拐買的婦女犯罪的特殊性使得修法能否跨越法律認知、理性選擇和盈虧權衡的三重障礙發揮威懾作用存在疑問。作為社會治理體系中的一環，基層執法的問題及其因應策略，應在立法權衡中被同步考量。摒棄立法萬能論的執念，重視行動中的法律，追求女性權益保護的實效而非口號，是立法者應當秉持的責任倫理。

When the result of the application of the law is in doubt, priority should be given to updating the theory of interpretation rather than starting the theory of legislation. It is a basic requirement of legal dogmatics and the standpoint of the rule of law behind it not to talk about amending the law before exhausting the interpretation space of the current law. With the changing times, public appeals to severely punish bribery crimes are justified. Interpreting the crime of buying abducted women as a preparatory crime for the subsequent criminality of rape, false imprisonment, Intentional, etc. , and especially paying attention to the differences between bribed rape and ordinary rape will help reduce the difficulty of proof and achieve combined punishment for several crimes. When the justice of retribution punishment can be satisfied by the theory of interpretation, the only reason for amending the law is whether it can significantly improve the preventive effect. However, the particularity of the crime of bribery makes it doubtful whether the revision of the law can play a deterrent role across the triple barriers of legal cognition, rational choice, and profit-loss balance. As a part of the social governance system, the problems of grassroots law enforcement and its coping strategies should be considered simultaneously in the legislative trade-offs. Abandoning the obsession with the omnipotence of legislation, attaching importance to the law in action, and pursuing the actual effect of protecting women’ s rights and interests rather than slogans is the responsibility ethics that legislators should uphold.