The Dilemma of Criminal Legal Dogmatic and a Constitutional Answer
Bai Bin
2009-01-01
Abstract:The discussion of Xu Ting Case has once focused on the question of whether Xu Tinges behavior constitutes theft or not. In the view of criminal legal dogmatic, it is a typical theft of financial institutions, for his behavior is secret and ATM is of course one part of financial institutions. So the first instance condemned Xu Ting to life imprisonment. But to the public opinions, such punishment is too heavy to be accepted, and the second instance of Xu Ting Case is a concession of criminal jurisdiction affronting public opinions. From the standpoint of criminal legal dogmatic, there is no positive law basis to use the theory of probability of anticipation to mitigate Xu Tinges criminal liability. Other scholars argue that the special commutation system in Chinese Criminal Law can be applied, or argue to differentiate the sentencing situations of "extremely huge amount" in general theft and theft of financial institutions, but such proposals are not very successful. The premise of criminal legal dogmatic is the trust in the justification of criminal law in force, so such proposals are the only solutions it can provide. This article thinks that, the dilemma of criminal legal dogmatic can be resolved only by the intervention of the constitutional legal dogmatic, which means that we should check the constitutionality of the aggravation article of theft in Criminal Code, i. e. §264. In modern times, as to the stabilization and prosperity of national economy and society, financial institutions play a more and more important role than other professions. The security of the property of financial institutions, especially of the banks, is the footstone of the stabilization of the national economy. So it can be permitted to give financial institutions special and suitable consideration in criminal law. But from the view of the principle of proportionality and the systematic interpretation, we must conclude that the aggravation article of theft in the Criminal Code, i. e. §264, which provides only death or life imprisonment as the penalties, goes too far beyond the legislative purpose, and thus is invalid for violating §33, para. 2 of the Constitution.