| 英文摘要 |
Criminal law dogmatics possesses an inherent practical orientation; however, the current theory of crime constitution, centered on semantic interpretation, often merely represents a cognitive consensus among participants in judicial sentencing, resulting in a detachment between theory and the specific judicial process. In contrast, techniques and knowledge derived from life practice possess a primordial nature, whereas cognitive knowledge based on semantic analysis is derivative. Consequently, the objective of criminal law dogmatics should not merely be the distinction between scientific truth and falsity, but rather the pursuit of meaning construction and understanding within the judicial process amidst value competition. To overcome the closed and abstract nature of existing theories, it is necessary to return to the source of life practice and transform criminal law dogmatics towards the judicial process, while maintaining the consensus platform of crime constitution theory. Specifically, emphasis should be placed on the research of“pre-constitutive element theory,”distinguishing between the judgment of conformity to constitutive elements and the holistic normative judgment of pre-constitutive elements. This approach incorporates the feelings, experiences, and value propositions of different judicial participants into the theoretical framework to address normative competition in judicial practice. Meanwhile, the“norm violation theory”should be upheld as the substantive criterion for the stage of illegality, strengthening the dimension of intersubjectivity to construct an open criminal law dogmatics system capable of accommodating the wisdom of life practice. |