摘要
This empirical study of legal interpretation takes as its sample all ＂capital crimes＂ from among the Supreme Court＇s exemplary cases. The study finds significant variations in which crimes are construed as being capital crimes, which capital crimes carry the death penalty, and whether the death sentence is carried out immediately. Based on these findings, the author concludes that legal interpretation involves both normative and autonomous judgments, and that the law itself should be clarified to the maximum extent possible so as to bring about a greater degree of standardization in the application of the death penalty.
本文以最高法院示范性案例中的全部“死罪”案例为样本进行法律解释学的实证研究，发现了犯罪中是否构成死罪、死罪中是否适用死刑、死刑中是否立即执行的一些重要不同，并根据这些发现认为，法律解释既是规范判断又是自主判断，应尽可能提高法律本身的明确性以呼唤死刑适用更大程度上向规范层面的回归。
