“存疑有利于被告人”的刑法解释规则之提倡

“存疑有利于被告人”在刑法方法论上备受冷遇，这源于刑法适用中的实质入罪思维即“处罚必要性”已成为决定解释范围之最高标准，“刑法存疑有利于被告人”则被视为解释学发达的阻碍。但确立了罪刑法定原则的现代刑法之首要价值乃是“明文”限制司法权，在解释存疑时，若要得出最终结论，必然不能基于价值中立，而是要由罪刑法定为“存疑有利于被告人”提供价值来源。对“刑法存疑有利于被告人”的轻视，导致目的解释成为解释方法之冠，类推解释通过“可能的文义”被包装为“被允许的扩大解释”，而二者共享“目的性扩张”的入罪逻辑，彼此之间没有明显界限。正如“事实存疑时”不能采信“可能具有”的事实，“刑法存疑时”也不能采用“可能具有”的文义。“存疑有利于被告人”意味着刑法安定性绝对优于处罚合理性，这种严格解释的态度永远不会过时，它有助于根绝入罪类推风险，鲜明提升文义在解释中的边界意义，是对罪刑法定最忠实的坚守。
“Being in favor of the defendants”is refused by criminal methodology while it is accepted by criminal procedure law. This situation comes from the goal-directed in criminal law application. The necessity of punishment has been the highest standard and “being in favor of the defendants” become a block. But the first value of modern criminal law is legality principle (Nulla Poena Sine Lege)which aims to restrict judicial power.The middle-of-the-roader principle will fail when faced with interpretation doubts. The discrimination of “being in favor of the defendants” leads to the governance of teleological interpretation which makes the analogical interpretation to be justified easily. In the logic of criminal law interpretation, there is no the term of “possible mean”. The rule of “being in favor of the defendants”means that stability comes before purposiveness. So the strict construction will not go behind the times since the legality principle has been established in penal code.