摘要： 刑法理论直接引入行政法上的比例原则存在解释力、实践性不足等问题,会导致“一刀切”的偏误,需要结合刑法的特性对比例原则予以再造。与解释问题的理论不同,解决问题的理论以法律规范为主轴,以法律实践为导向,更加具有法解释学属性。我国刑法理论不能照搬行政法中的比例原则,需要对比例原则的三大子原则进行本土化改造,实现比例原则从解释问题的理论到解决问题的理论之基本转变,并在其内部建立起多层次、有标准、与宪法具有关联的过滤机制。其中,适当性原则重视目的正当性判断,需要借助法益理论来证成。必要性原则主张犯罪的类型化与审查标准个别化对应,强调在区分轻罪、中间型犯罪与重罪的基础上针对不同犯罪化立法分别采取宽松标准、严格标准与最严格审查标准。相当性原则需要把基本权利作为实质价值论证的理由,并在法益衡量中纳入人性尊严的终极标准。

关键词: 比例原则, 基本权利, 审查密度理论, 法益保护原则, 最严格审查标准

Abstract: The introduction of the principle of proportionality from administrative law into criminal law theory directly has problems of insufficient interpretative power and practicality, resulting in the error of “one-size-fits-all”, so it is necessary to recreate it in combination with the characteristics of criminal law.Different from the theory for interpreting problems, the theory for solving problems takes legal norms as the main axis and legal practice as the orientation, and is more characterized by legal hermeneutics.China's criminal law theory cannot simply copy the principle of proportionality in administrative law.It is necessary to carry out localization transformation of the three sub-principles of the principle of proportionality to achieve the fundamental transformation of the principle of proportionality from a theory for interpreting problems to a theory for solving problems, and to establish a multi-level, standardized and constitutionally related filtering mechanism within it.Among them, the principle of suitability attaches importance to the judgment of the legitimacy of the purpose and needs to be justified by the theory of legal interests.The principle of necessity advocates the correspondence between the typification of crimes and the individualization of review standards, emphasizing that different standards of leniency, strictness and the most strict review should be adopted for different criminalization legislations based on the distinction between minor crimes, intermediate crimes and serious crimes.The principle of excessive prohibition needs to take basic rights as the substantive value argument and incorporate the ultimate standard of human dignity into the measurement of legal interests.

Key words: Principle of Proportionality, Fundamental Rights, Theory of Review Intensity, Principle of Protection of Legal Interests, the Strictest Review Standard