法官如何解释法律:基于三年醉驾入刑实践的反思

醉驾入刑实践三年有余，量刑存在“虚实不定”与混乱现象。立法者的醉驾入刑命题在量刑问题上并未被实现。法官们受制于社会危害性理论的解释前见，对醉驾案件采用妥协解释策略，既遵循法律形式主义进行犯罪宣告，又遵循实质解释标准对量刑问题自由裁量。混乱的量刑所承载的法官自身意志对立法目的的异化值得深思。醉驾量刑中法官们的解释过程反映出法治建设必须关注的一个重要问题:如何促使法官们合理解释法律，从而有效实现立法目的。

The Judges Interpretation of the Law: Reflections on the Three-year Penalty to Drunk Driving

Although the penalty to drunk driving has been practiced for three years, penalty measurement of them are still not clear. The proposition of“all drunk driving should be punished”which was issued by lawmakers is not completely accepted and practiced by the judges. Constrained by the prejudice of social harmfulness, the judges usually adopt a compromised interpretation on drunk driving, i.e. they announce that“all of drunk driving should be punished”on the one hand, and they measure the penalty according to their own understanding on the other hand. This alienation and compromise is very dangerous to the rule of law which causes profound concern in jurisprudence