【作者】 邓多文；

【导师】 陈忠林；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 合理性是法律的核心问题。历史上,安提戈涅式刑法悲剧不断重演,展开了合法与合情合理之间的冲突。刑法解释应当如何正确抉择,化解冲突,破解悲剧,一直在考量、锤炼着历代司法者的智慧。现实中,部分群众对司法的不信任感正在逐渐泛化成普遍社会心理,这是一种极其可怕的现象。怎样才能透过现象看到本质,厘清刑法解释的认同危机,探寻扩大认同度、提升公信力的根本路径,这攸关合理性的判断标准、合理性的具体应用以及合理性的过程方法。本文以“刑法的合理性解释”为题,就是试图通过与前人对话,充分回应并力求解决历史和现实向我们提出的这些重大的理论与实践课题。刑法解释过程的辩证性要求解释的合理性。刑法解释蕴含着解释主体与解释对象之间、解释对象之间、立法者与解释者之间、解释共同体与社会共同体之间诸多的辩证关系。辩证关系之内活跃着刑法解释的辩证运动。开启辩证运动的,无疑是作为“前理解”的解释者经验与价值。经验与价值的渗透,彰显了刑法解释的创造性,而一旦没有合理性的边界,则会滑向虚无性。这个边界就是社会的共同经验和共同价值,即社会共同体成员的基本共识。前理解有合理与否之分,其标准为个别与整体是否具有一致性,即解释者的个人经验、价值是否符合整体上共同的经验和共同的价值。刑法解释的整个过程就是在合理前见指引下的解释循环过程、规范与事实的对接过程、立法者与解释者的视域融合过程,这个过程浸润着解释循环的辩证法、解释经验的辩证法、你—我关系的辩证法、对话的辩证法,这些辩证法矛盾运动的本质亦即界限在于达致合理性的解释结论。刑法解释过程是立法者与解释者的对话和视域融合。这意味着,仅有立法者的独白或者司法者的判断,甚至二者纯粹形式上的合意与一致,都是不被容许的,而只有社会共同的经验和价值才能真正推动解释的合理循环。这实际上引出了合理性的判断标准。基于理性主义、传统解释学、三权分立和形式罪刑法定的“主观说”,将立法者原意作为合理性的标准,不仅与刑法解释的辩证过程不符,而且立法原意没有具体的存在,也不能准确地把握,一旦异化为司法者不受限制的意图,还可能导致人治甚至专制的恶果。客观说中的“文本原意说”,以刑法文本的意思或者说文本的原意作为刑法解释是否合理的判断标准。“文本原意”与“立法者意志”互为表里、一脉相承。在这个意义上,“文本原意说”的哲学基础、解释学基础、政治学基础以及刑法学基础,与“主观说”没有实质的差别,面临着同样的困境。因此,客观说中的“客观”,与其是法律文本原意的客观,毋宁是社会现实需要的客观。这可称为“社会需要”客观说。它主张根据社会需要对刑法进行创造性解释,在一定程度上缓解了刑法解释的价值合理性张力,是值得充分肯定的。在如何防止解释者恣意的难题上,有论者主张“在文义许可的范围内选择、阐发符合需要的含义”。应如何确定“文义许可的范围”,该论者提出以是否偏离普通公民的常识性观念作为可预测性的判断标准。本文赞同这一立场。但“常识”标准如何才能不脱离刑法规定从而渗透到刑法解释过程中去,却是该论者尚未解决的规范性、技术性问题。这个问题不解决,就会违反罪刑法定和法治精神。因而,只有将社会需要置于共同经验与共同价值(包括该论者所说的常识性观念)、刑法规范与案件事实之间的解释循环,而不是人为地将这几者相互割裂开来,方可获得同具合理性与合法性的解释论证。主、客观折衷说,无论主观折衷于客观还是客观折衷于主观,都只是人为的凑合,而非有机的统一,因而无法避免主观说、客观说脱离刑法解释过程的共同缺陷。在扬弃主观说、客观说、折衷说的基础上,本文根据解释哲学的最新发展,因应刑法解释的“对话”过程,汲取实践智慧,提出了“共识说”。对话不仅在立法者与解释者之间,也在解释者与一般国民之间进行。因此,作为对话基础的共识,就不只是解释共同体的经验与价值,而应该是社会共同体的经验与价值。从哈贝马斯的理想对话情景不能演绎出有内容的共识,只有共同经验与共同价值才是共识的实质基础。共同经验与共同价值,一言以蔽之,即常识、常理、常情。常识、常理、常情是人类把握世界的与自我的最具普遍性的基本方式。一个没有常识、常理、常情的人,就无法作为“正常人”生活。常识、常理、常情来源于经验,符合于经验,适用于经验。由此形成的世界图景,就是“经验的世界图景”。我们在运用共同经验的过程中逐渐明白了其中包含的“理”,即常理、情理、事理。刑法解释之所以必须遵循作为最低共识的常识、常理、常情,是因为刑事法律关系根本上是一种人与人之间的关系,对它的解释就不能脱离天理、人情,更不能违背常识、常理、常情。唯其如此,刑法才能从本质上真正成为人民的法律,其“定分止争”的功能也才能在人民自觉遵守的基础上得到实现。从刑法规范性质的角度,不论是作为裁判规范还是行为规范,应然的刑法规范都必须符合实际的“运行规范”——常识、常理、常情。所以,刑法合理性解释的基本标准就只能溯源于此。不论社会制度首要价值的“正义”还是具体自然法之集大成者的“事物本质”,一致的经验价值都是判断的基础,因而,常识、常理、常情比它们更易知晓,更易操作。运用常识、常理、常情解释刑法,核心是“以理明文”、“以理释法”,实质是在合法性范围内考察合理性即刑罚的必要性和罪刑是否相适应,绝非如有的论者所言,刑法解释的常识化即“望文生义”。刑法解释的本质在于理解、解释和应用的统一。因此必须把合理性的标准用来解决刑法的实际问题。换言之,合理性的标准,不管是共同的经验与共同的价值,还是常识、常理、常情,必须转换为刑法话语,进入刑法的“专业槽”,否则永远是“隔靴搔痒”、自说自话,无助于刑法问题的解决。刑法解释“是从一定的立场或角度出发,以刑法规范为根据,探讨真正值得处罚的行为,在不侵犯犯人的人权的前提之下科处适当的刑罚”(大谷实)。所谓“一定的立场或角度”,本文认为应该是共同的经验与价值即常识、常理、常情。因此,刑法的合理性解释,应该有处罚范围的合理性和处罚程度的合理性之维。对处罚范围的合理性,首先要树立“不得已性”的刑法理念,从技术上讲,其判断标准为：(1)其他法律制度不能调整；(2)如果刑法不调整(介入),相应的法律制度就受到根本的威胁。由于犯罪行为违背了大家共同认可的常识、常理、常情,因而是否背离常识、常理、常情,就是“不得已性”的价值标准。技术标准必须统一于价值标准。在司法实践中,中外刑法一方面对构成要件作实质解释,另一方面建立排除犯罪的机制,实现了处罚范围的合理性。不论构成要件的实质解释还是排除犯罪的机制,最终的判断标准都只能是常识、常理、常情。刑法处罚范围的合理性,必须融入定罪的过程才能实现。这个过程不是纯粹从规范到事实的三段论演绎,而是在常识、常理、常情蕴含之“理”推介下的类推与循环。处罚程度的合理性,要求禁止残酷的、不均衡的刑罚,做到罪刑相适应。由于犯罪与刑罚都是社会发展到一定阶段的历史产物,因此罪刑相适应的判断标准具有历史性,只能以特定时间、特定地点、特定领域之一般人的价值观念即常识、常理、常情为标准,而不能脱离具体的历史条件去构建抽象的、空洞的罪刑关系。所以,罪刑相适应同样必须以不得已性为根据,为限度。这是从价值的角度而言。如果从技术上展开,罪刑相相适应就是与犯罪的客观危害性、犯罪人的主观恶性及人身危险性相适应,这三者又统一于主观恶性(罪过)。罪刑相适应通过具体的量刑方法并在真实的量刑过程中才‘能实现。量刑过程同样是在解释者前理解推动下规范与事实的循环与类推,因而排除经验与价值、排除常识、常理、常情的渗透,实现精确量化,只能是劳而无功。这决定了经验量刑法始终应是主要量刑方法,而量化量刑法则居于辅助之位。由于犯罪过程即行为人主观罪过的现实展开,主观罪过的现实展开过程,决定了罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪、重罪与轻罪、共同犯罪、一罪与数罪以及犯罪的形态,当然也相应地决定了刑罚的幅度。因此,主观罪过是定罪量刑最基本、最重要的根据和标准,定罪量刑过程必须以查明主观罪过的有无、内容及其实现程度为基础和前提。这就从规范和技术的角度,把定罪的合理性与量刑的合理性,即刑法处罚范围的合理性与处罚程度的合理性有机结合起来了。而无论对主观罪过中行为人认识状态(对于自己行为性质的认识、对于自己行为结果的认识、对于自己行为发展过程的认识)还是控制状态的推定,其根据均为行为人的能力和行为时的条件,这实质上要求遵循特定“常人”的标准,坚持常识、常理、常情,进行“行为人所属的常人领域中的平行性评价”。罪过推定要求排除合理怀疑,其判断标准亦是常识、常理、常情!最后,处罚程度的合理性、处罚范围的合理性,都与合法性密不可分。主观罪过的展开不仅是心理事实的展开,也是规范价值的展开,因此同样与合法性相辅相成。合法性有形式和实质的两个维度。从形式上讲,合法性即“合法律性”；在实质上,合法性即“正当性”、“合理性”。合法性的两个维度决定了罪刑法定的两个侧面：形式侧面与实质侧面。罪刑法定的形式侧面,即罪刑法定的技术性要求,旨在实现刑法内容的明确性和确定性。罪刑法定实质侧面的基本内涵均是,刑法仅仅形式地规定犯罪和刑罚是不够的,其内容必须具有合理性。可见,合理性是合法性的实质和内容,二者应该是有机统一的。就解释的价值取向而言,只有合理的,才是合法的；就解释的实际过程而言,入则以理,出则以法；就解释的主体与对象而言,只有不懂理的人,没有不讲理的法。因此,常识、常理、常情是解释一切犯罪(自然犯、法定犯)的前提和基础,但不是直接解释一切的准绳和依据,是内在的“魂”,而非外在之“形”。在常规案件中,解释者事实上下意识地自发运用着常识、常理、常情,只是在争议性案件里,常识、常理、常情的前提作用,基础作用,灵魂作用更为凸显,备受关注,影响重大,解释者必须有意识地自觉运用常识、常理、常情,才能得出合理性的解释结论。在刑法合理性解释的具体应用中,处罚范围、处罚程度的合理性,主观罪过的判定,都是通过规范与事实之间的循环来实现的。在循环过程中,刑法规范与案件事实相互调适、相互比较、相互对应。这种对应意味着：法律认识系根据类推的基础而来。所以,刑法解释的过程在根本上就是比较和类推,实现刑法合理性解释的各种方法寓于类推的过程之中。类推过程是主观性与客观性、确定性与不确定性的统一,在形式上表现为刑法条文(规范)与案件(生活)事实之间的类推,在规范上表现为主观罪过或者刑法目的之间的类推,在价值上表现为法理与常理、情理、事理之间的类推。因而始终处于“可能的文义”、不法类型的界限之中,不可能脱离刑事法治的缰绳。类推的过程即刑法解释的过程。刑法的合理性解释必须能够用具体的解释方法加以分析和论证,同时这些解释方法分析、论证的类推过程与结果,能够被社会共同体认可和接受,符合最基本的共识——共同经验与共同价值——常识、常理、常情。因此,刑法的合理性解释,实质上就是司法者在共同经验、共同价值或者常识、常理、常情的引领下,对行为人主观罪过内容及其实现程度的认定,它是在犯罪人与全体公民的人权之间所作的不得已选择。共同经验、共同价值或者常识、常理、常情源于人,将主观罪过作为处罚合理性的规范标准是出于尊重人,在犯罪人与全体公民的人权之间进行不得已选择,根本上是为了保护人。“人”贯穿于刑法解释的整个过程。透过这一过程,一个源于人、尊重人、保护人的刑法解释观跃然纸上、呼之欲出,这姑且称作“以人为本”的刑法解释观。当然,它也完全可以称为常识、常理、常情的解释观,或基于主观罪过的解释观,或保护人权的解释观,甚而基于人性或良心的解释观。它们之间是彼此和谐、相互贯通的。这种新的解释观的建构,从历史的角度,受到了安提戈涅式刑法悲剧的启示。这类悲剧揭示出,刑法规范一旦与常识、常理、常情冲突并“绝意”施行,将导致更多的惩罚并遭到百姓的反对,不仅给当事人和其他人带来不幸、痛苦,还会给国家造成灾难。因此,刑法的运作不仅是规则的运作,还应是常识、常理、常情的运作,用良心沟通刑法规范与常识、常理、常情成为我们的现实选择。只有这样,我们才‘能解说刑法的本体、理性的界限、人性的力量和生命的意义,从而获得审美的超越和真正的自由。所以,这类悲剧对人性、人伦、人情的赞美,折射出“以人为本”的和谐社会对刑法合理性解释的现实期待：其一,保护包括犯罪人在内的全体公民的基本人权(目的合理性)；其二,用共同体认同、接受的“理”为法的形式注入活的灵魂(价值合理性)；其三,坚持罪过为本,把主观罪过的内容及其实现程度作为定罪量刑的依据(规范合理性)。目的合理性、价值合理性、规范合理性之间并无截然界限,都是基于人、为了人的合理性。这三个期待、三个合理性共同构筑了和谐社会“以人为本”刑法解释观的基本内涵。不论历史的启示还是现实的期待,“以人为本”的刑法解释观都要求在具体的司法实践中做到：(1)司法精英与社会公众互动；(2)法律效果与社会效果统一；(3)业务教育与良心教育结合。更多还原

【Abstract】 Rationality is the core issue of law. Historically, the repeatedly occurred Antigone-style criminal tragedy has launched the conflict between the legitimacy and the rationality.Recently, some people’s distrust to the administration of justice is gradually generalized into a universal socio-psychological, which is a terrible phenomenon.This literature, on the rationality of the criminal law interpretation, is just aimed at the reconciliation to the conflict and the tragedy, the solution to the crises in the criminal justice and the fundamental way to expand the identity and enhance the credibility to the interpretation.The dialectical process, of the criminal law interpretation requests for the rationality, during which lie the dialectical relationships between the subject and the object, the objects, the legislator and the interpreter, the interpretative community and social community and so on, that are invigorated by the dialectical movement no doubt push forward by the experience and value as the "pre-understanding". The infiltration of the experience and the value highlights the creativity and will slide into nothingness once there is no rational boundary which is the community’s common experiences and common values, just as the basic consensus of the members of the community. The pre-understanding, whether rational or irrational, is determined by the individual or interpreter’s personal experience that is whether consistent with the whole or the common experience and shared values. The whole interpretative process of the criminal law, under the guidance of the pre-understanding, consisting of the interpretative cycle, the docking between the norms and the facts, the fusion of the horizons between the legislator and the interpreter, is soaked into by the dialectics of the interpretative cycle, of the experiences, of you-Ⅰrelationship, of the dialogue and etc, the essence or the boundary of which is to achieve rational conclusions.The dialogue and the fusion of horizons between the legislator and the interpreter mean that only the common experience and values promote the interpretative cycle as the legislator or interpreter’s monologue is not to be tolerated and that a rational standard is actually put forward. Based on the rationalism, the traditional hermeneutics, the separation of powers and the formal principle of legality, "subjective theory", using legislative intent as the standard, not only does not match to the dialectical interpretative process, but also may lead to the rule of man or even despotic consequences once alienated to unrestrained judicial intent as there is no specific legislative intent nor accurately grasp. The meaning of the text or the original intent of the text as the reasonable criterion of "The text intent theory" of "the objective theory", interacts with the "legislators will" at the same strain. In this sense, the "text intent theory" and "subjective to theory" based on the same philosophy, hermeneutics, political science and criminal law theory, have no real difference and face the same dilemma. Therefore, the "objectivity" that consists in the "objective theory", is rather the objective needs of social reality than the objectivity of legal text. This can be called the "objective theory of social needs" that advocates the creative interpretation of the criminal law according to the needs of society and should be fully affirmed on account of the easement of the value tension to a certain extent.. The theory, resorts to the meaning chosen and expounded in line with the needs permitted by the text on how to prevent the arbitrary interpretation. The extent to which the meaning is permitted by the text, as the predictable criteria, the learner proposes, depends on whether it deviates from the common sense of ordinary citizens that is favored by this literature. But society needs are just a part of common experiences and shared values, and the penetration of the common sense into the interpretative process is have not yet resolved by the commentators. Thus, only by placing the needs of society within the dialectical cycle between the shared experiences and values, including the common-sense, instead of artificially separating them, can the rational interpretation be acquired. The eclectic theory, whether the objective compromised in the subjective or vice versa, is just made up, rather than organic unity, therefore cannot be refrained from the common defects laid in the subjective and objective theory that are their divorce from the interpretative process. In abandonment of the subjective, the objective and the eclectic theory, this literature, according to the latest developments in the philosophical hermeneutics, raises the "consensus theory" in the light of the dialogue feature of the interpretative process. Thanks to the dialogue happened not only between the legislator and the interpreter but also between the interpreter and the general citizens, the consensus as the basis for the dialogue, derives from both the legal community and the social community’s experiences and values. Habermas’ideal scenario dialogue cannot bring about a consensus with contents, so only the common experience and shared values are the substantive basis for the consensus. The common experience and shared values, in a word, are common sense, common reason, and common humanity that are the most universal way to the grasp of the world and the human itself. A person lack of common sense, common reason and common humanity cannot survive normally. Common sense, common reason and common humanity, coming from, conforming with and applied in experiences, take shape of the world as the one of experiences. During making use of the common experiences, we gradually understand the common, reasonable and sensible "truth" embodied by them. Why do the common sense, common reason and common humanity must be followed as a minimum consensus by the law interpretation? Because the legal relationship is essentially a relationship between the people and the general people can only take their actions in accordance with common sense, common reason and common humanity due to not understanding the specific provisions of the law. As to criminal interpretation, the criminal law norms as referee specification is in uniform with the human behavior standards, while the human behavior standards in turn stem from the actually followed standards, common sense, common reason and common humanity in which lies the fundamental criteria of the rational interpretation. Not only to "justice" as the primary value of the social system, but to "nature of things" as the synthesizer of the specific natural law, the determined baseline of which is the consistent experience and value. Thus, common sense, common reason and common humanity are easier to be understood and operated. Applying the common sense, common reason and common humanity in the interpretation of the criminal law is to define the characters and expound the rules with principium, in essence, to take the necessity of punishment and the balance between crime and punishment into account, by any means not to interpret the provisions too literally.The essence of criminal law interpretation consists in the unity of understanding, interpretation and application, so the standard of rationality must be put into use to solve practical problems. In other words, the common experience and shared values or the common sense, common reason and common humanity must be converted to the criminal law discourse into the "professional slot", otherwise we will scratch an itch from outside our boots and tell our own stories forever that do not contribute to the solution of problems. As criminal law interpretation, from a certain position or point of view, based on the criminal law regulations, is to ascertain the conduct truly worthy of punishment and the appropriate penalty without violating the premise of the human rights of the prisoners, the rational interpretation, can be divided into rationality of the range and the degree of the punishment. As to the former, we must first establish a "last resort" philosophy to the criminal law, technically speaking judged, by the criteria as follow:(1) Other legal systems can not adjust the conduct; (2) if the criminal law does not adjust or intervene it, the corresponding legal system will be confronted with a fundamental threat. The value standard of which is the common sense, common reason and common humanity due to the criminal acts on contrary to them generally acknowledged by all the community members. The technical standard must be unified with the values. In judicial practice, China and the foreign countries on the one hand interpret the constitution of the crime substantially, the other hand, establish a mechanism to exclude crimes to achieve the reasonable scope of the punishment. The ultimate standard of the real explanation and the excluding mechanism is only the common sense, common reason and common humanity. The reasonableness of the scope of criminal penalty can be achieved only by being integrated into the process of conviction that is not the syllogism purely from the standard to the facts, but is the analogy and circulation promoted by the "justification" contained in the common sense, common reason and common humanity. As to the latter, the cruel, non-balanced sentences are .prohibited and the punishment must be suited to the crime. Since the crime and the punishment are products of historical development, the balance between them is determined historically by general human values also the common sense, common reason and common humanity in specific times, places, fields, but must not be constructed abstractly and hollowly broken away from the specific historical conditions. This is from a value point of view. In technical sense, the punishment is adapted to the objective danger, the offender’s subjective malignant and the social risk that are unified into the subjective malignant. Can the principle of punishment suiting to the crime be realized only through specific methods and sentencing process which is also the cycle and analogy between the rules and the facts driven by the pre-understanding, thus excluding the experience and values, or the common sense, common reason and common humanity will be nothing but fruitless that implies the empirical method has always been a major sentencing approach and the quantitative method in a supportive position. As the criminal process is the actualization of subjective culpability, conviction and sentencing is to identify the presence or absence, the content and the extent of subjective guilt, therefore, from the normative and technical point of view, to realize rationality of the scope and the degree of criminal penalties, the subjective culpability should be cut into and broken through. To presume both the awareness state such as the understanding of the nature and the results of their actions, of the development process and the control state, you should follow the "ordinary person", adhere to the common sense, common reason and common humanity and deal with the perpetrator belonging to ordinary people in the field of parallel evaluation. Presumption of guilt beyond reasonable doubt are required, the criterion of which is also the common sense, common reason and common humanity! Finally, the reasonableness of the degree and the range of punishment, and the legitimacy are inextricably linked. Owing to the unfolding of sin as not only subjective psychological facts, but also normative values, it is also complementary to legitimacy. Legitimacy has two dimensions of form and substance. Formally speaking, the legitimacy refers to "legality"; in essence, the legitimacy is equal to rationality or reasonableness. The two dimensions determine the two aspects, formal and substantive, of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime. The former, as the technical requirements, aims at achieving clarity and certainty meanwhile the latter claims the reasonable contents for only the formality of crime and punishment is not enough. To sum up, as rationality is the substance and content of the legality, they should be an organic unity. In value, only reasonable interpretation is legal; in the actual process, you should employ the principium to interpret and rules to explain; on the subject and object, there is nothing but people that do not understand the principium just as there are no laws that are unreasonable and irrational.Reasonable interpretation of the criminal law must be analyzed and demonstrated with specific methods meanwhile the analysis and the demonstration can be recognized and accepted by the social community and they are in line with the most fundamental consensus-common experience and common values-the common sense, common reason and common humanity. The reasonable range and degree of punishment, the judgment of subjective guilt are carried on through the cycle between norms and facts. In the circulation process, criminal law norms and the facts of the case are mutually adjusted, assimilated and compared with each other. This "equivalence" between the stipulation and the fact means that the criminal law interpretation is fundamentally the comparison and analogy and analogy is the fundamental process of criminal law interpretation. The other methods have analogical characters and can operate only by analogical program. If so, it is impossible to prohibit the analogy in that prohibition of analogy amounts to prohibition of the interpretation and the criminal law themselves. Analogy, as the combination of subjectivity and objectivity, of certainty and uncertainty, manifests itself formally between the criminal provisions and the facts, normatively between the subjective sins, and in value between the legal principle and the common sense, common reason and common humanity. The process of analogy represents the interpretation process of criminal law. As a result, Reasonable interpretation of the criminal law, guided by the common experiences and values or the common sense, common reason and common humanity, is essentially the judiciary identification of the content and degree of subjective guilt. It is the last resort option against the human rights between the perpetrator and all citizens. The common experiences and values or the common sense, common reason and common humanity originating from people, to realize a reasonable punishment by subjective guilt as normative standard being out of respect for the people and the last resort option between the perpetrator and all citizens being in order to protect people, "People" are active in the whole process of the criminal law interpretation. Through this process, a new concept of the criminal law interpretation, one from the people, out of respect for the people, in the protection of the people can still be seen, which is tentatively called as "people-oriented" interpretation concept or interpretation concept based on common sense, common reason and common humanity, subjective guilt, human rights, human nature and even conscience that are concordant and interconnected. From a historical point of view, the construction of the new concept interpretation is inspired by the Greek tragedy "Antigone" that brings to light that once the criminal law is in conflict with the common feeling and carried out absolutely, it will cause more punishment and encounter the common people’s objection, not only bringing the party concerned and others miseries, pains and sufferings, also resulting in disasters for the state. The operation of the criminal law is not only the operation of the rules, but also of the common sense, common reason and common humanity, so it is realistic choice for us to draw upon our conscience to communicate the criminal law with common sense, common reason and common humanity. Only in this way, can the real freedom be acquired. The tragedy, in this sense, may also be read as the tragedy of the criminal law. The aesthetic merits that lie in the tragedy of the criminal law are the permanent brilliance of human nature, revelation of life’s purport and contradiction and the answer to the metaphysical problem, "what is the criminal law". "Antigone" is a mirror through which can be reflected the expectations of the "people-oriented" harmonious society to the rationality of the criminal law interpretation as follow, (1) protecting the basic human rights of all citizens including the perpetrators (the rationality of purpose); (2) injecting into the form of the law the living soul with the recognized and accepted "rationale" by the community (rationality of value) and (3) adhering to the principle of culpability and utilizing its content and the degree of realization as foundations in conviction and sentencing(rationality of specification).The rationality of the purpose, the value and the specification, are all based on the people, for people, thence there is no sharp line between them. In view of the historical revelation and the real expectations, the "people-oriented" new concept interpretation requires in judicial practice:(1) the interaction of the judicial elite and the community; (2) the unification of the social effects and the legal effects; (3) the combination of the business education and the conscience education.更多还原