案件事实认定中的合情推理研究
发布时间：2018-08-27 15:14
【摘要】：合情推理是作为一种解题方法由美国数学家波利亚在其《数学与猜想》一书中首次提出的。波利亚以欧拉猜想为引，对比论证推理，发展出合情推理并赋予其基本模式和多角度的应用扩展。其后，合情推理作为一种工具进入各个领域。最具实用价值的当属法学领域，尤其司法领域，从来就未能和逻辑相分离。法学家越来越意识到单纯的形式逻辑已不能满足实践的需要，因此将合情推理引入，很多国家将其作为破案的重要工具。但是，鉴于我国的司法现状，在我国关于合情推理的探讨仍是集中于理论层面和侦查阶段，较少涉及审判实践。但是，审判阶段是适用法律的重要阶段，也是定罪量刑、得出判处结论的关键环节。而事实认定又是总结侦查阶段成果、得出判处结论的重中之重，因此事实认定环节又成为审判阶段需要重点谈论的环节。同时，案件事实本身的性质和司法审判自身的特点也决定了单纯的形式逻辑无法无所不能的解决好审判阶段的所有问题。因此，，在其他国家作为论证推理的补充并成功应用的合情推理在事实认定中的应用值得探讨。 本文旨在通过对合情推理和事实认定的理论概括，分析两者结合应用的可行性，借鉴西方经典案例，重新审视合情推理在我国的应用和发展。文章主要包括四个部分： 第一部分：合情推理之基础理论。该部分主要介绍了波利亚对合情推理的提出和发展，并在此基础上从法理、哲学、逻辑三个不同的角度分析合情推理这一理论产生和存在的基础。最后具体分析了合情推理的内涵、特征和基本模式，形成一个完整的合情推理理论体系。 第二部分：事实认定之相关理论。该部分先是区分了社会生活和法律生活中不同的事实分类，在此基础上明确事实认定的主体、依据和方法，剖析事实认定的各个环节，为之后合情推理应用其中提供支持。 第三部分：合情推理在案件事实认定中的应用。本部分首先从案件本身性质、现存的小前提获取方法以及合情推理结论的性质三个角度分析了合情推理应用的可行性。然后从证据的证据能力和证明力两个层面分析合情推理在事实认定的核心环节证据认定中的应用。进而根据实践发展提出并分析了合情推理的具体应用模式，并以哈维·克里平案为例，全面分析合情推理在事实认定中的具体应用，从实践层面肯定其价值。 第四部分：合情推理在事实认定中的发展与思考。该部分肯定了合情推理在我国司法实践中的应用，并以一个简单的案例分析了事实认定环节的隐性适用。同时，也提出了合情推理在我国司法审判事实认定环节中应用存在的一些问题。最后从证据学和审判环境对合情推理的应用完善提出一些建议。
[Abstract]:Rational reasoning was first proposed by American mathematician Poolia in his book Mathematics and conjecture as a method of solving problems. Led by Euler's conjecture, Polia developed reasonable reasoning and gave it basic mode and multi-angle application expansion. Subsequently, reasonable reasoning as a tool into various fields. The field of law, especially the field of justice, has never been separated from logic. Jurists are more and more aware that simple formal logic can no longer meet the needs of practice, so they introduce reasonable reasoning, which is regarded as an important tool for solving cases in many countries. However, in view of the current judicial situation in our country, the discussion on reasonable reasoning is still focused on the theoretical level and the investigation stage, and seldom involves the trial practice. However, the trial stage is an important stage of the application of the law, and also the key link of the conviction and sentencing. And the fact cognizance is the most important point of summing up the results of the investigation stage and reaching the conclusion of the sentence, so the fact cognizance link becomes the link which needs to be discussed emphatically in the trial stage. At the same time, the nature of the facts of the case and the characteristics of the judicial trial itself also determine that simple formal logic can not solve all the problems in the trial stage. Therefore, the application of reasonable reasoning, which is used successfully as a supplement to reasoning in other countries, is worth exploring. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the theory of reasonable reasoning and fact recognition, analyze the feasibility of combining the two theories, draw lessons from western classical cases, and re-examine the application and development of reasonable reasoning in China. The article mainly includes four parts: the first part: the basic theory of reasonable reasoning. In this part, the author mainly introduces the theory of reasonable reasoning and its development, and analyzes the foundation of the theory from three different angles: legal theory, philosophy and logic. Finally, the connotation, characteristics and basic mode of reasonable reasoning are analyzed in detail to form a complete theoretical system of reasonable reasoning. The second part: the related theory of fact finding. This part first distinguishes between the social life and the legal life in the different fact classification, on this basis clear the fact cognizance main body, the basis and the method, dissects the fact confirmation each link, provides the support for the later reasonable reasoning application. The third part: the application of reasonable reasoning in case fact determination. This part first analyzes the feasibility of the application of reasonable reasoning from three angles: the nature of the case itself, the existing methods of obtaining small premises and the nature of reasonable reasoning conclusion. Then the paper analyzes the application of reasonable reasoning in the core link of fact determination from the two aspects of evidence ability and proof power. Then according to the development of practice, this paper puts forward and analyzes the concrete application mode of reasonable reasoning, and taking Harvey Kripin case as an example, comprehensively analyzes the concrete application of reasonable reasoning in the identification of facts, and confirms its value from the aspect of practice. The fourth part: the development and thinking of reasonable reasoning in fact recognition. This part affirms the application of reasonable reasoning in the judicial practice of our country, and analyzes the tacit application of fact determination by a simple case. At the same time, it also puts forward some problems existing in the application of reasonable reasoning in judicial trial fact determination in our country. Finally, some suggestions on the application of reasonable reasoning in the environment of evidence and trial are put forward.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90-051
本文编号：2207660
[Abstract]:Rational reasoning was first proposed by American mathematician Poolia in his book Mathematics and conjecture as a method of solving problems. Led by Euler's conjecture, Polia developed reasonable reasoning and gave it basic mode and multi-angle application expansion. Subsequently, reasonable reasoning as a tool into various fields. The field of law, especially the field of justice, has never been separated from logic. Jurists are more and more aware that simple formal logic can no longer meet the needs of practice, so they introduce reasonable reasoning, which is regarded as an important tool for solving cases in many countries. However, in view of the current judicial situation in our country, the discussion on reasonable reasoning is still focused on the theoretical level and the investigation stage, and seldom involves the trial practice. However, the trial stage is an important stage of the application of the law, and also the key link of the conviction and sentencing. And the fact cognizance is the most important point of summing up the results of the investigation stage and reaching the conclusion of the sentence, so the fact cognizance link becomes the link which needs to be discussed emphatically in the trial stage. At the same time, the nature of the facts of the case and the characteristics of the judicial trial itself also determine that simple formal logic can not solve all the problems in the trial stage. Therefore, the application of reasonable reasoning, which is used successfully as a supplement to reasoning in other countries, is worth exploring. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the theory of reasonable reasoning and fact recognition, analyze the feasibility of combining the two theories, draw lessons from western classical cases, and re-examine the application and development of reasonable reasoning in China. The article mainly includes four parts: the first part: the basic theory of reasonable reasoning. In this part, the author mainly introduces the theory of reasonable reasoning and its development, and analyzes the foundation of the theory from three different angles: legal theory, philosophy and logic. Finally, the connotation, characteristics and basic mode of reasonable reasoning are analyzed in detail to form a complete theoretical system of reasonable reasoning. The second part: the related theory of fact finding. This part first distinguishes between the social life and the legal life in the different fact classification, on this basis clear the fact cognizance main body, the basis and the method, dissects the fact confirmation each link, provides the support for the later reasonable reasoning application. The third part: the application of reasonable reasoning in case fact determination. This part first analyzes the feasibility of the application of reasonable reasoning from three angles: the nature of the case itself, the existing methods of obtaining small premises and the nature of reasonable reasoning conclusion. Then the paper analyzes the application of reasonable reasoning in the core link of fact determination from the two aspects of evidence ability and proof power. Then according to the development of practice, this paper puts forward and analyzes the concrete application mode of reasonable reasoning, and taking Harvey Kripin case as an example, comprehensively analyzes the concrete application of reasonable reasoning in the identification of facts, and confirms its value from the aspect of practice. The fourth part: the development and thinking of reasonable reasoning in fact recognition. This part affirms the application of reasonable reasoning in the judicial practice of our country, and analyzes the tacit application of fact determination by a simple case. At the same time, it also puts forward some problems existing in the application of reasonable reasoning in judicial trial fact determination in our country. Finally, some suggestions on the application of reasonable reasoning in the environment of evidence and trial are put forward.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90-051
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 秦玮远;何向东;;合情推理的逻辑——从欧拉猜想说起[J];安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2007年05期
2 杨波;;法律事实辨析[J];当代法学;2007年06期
3 李宏伟;科学研究的“合情”与“合理”[J];东岳论丛;2001年03期
4 陈金钊;;论法律事实[J];法学家;2000年02期
5 官慧;论皮尔士的假设逻辑[J];湖北行政学院学报;2002年02期
6 杰克Ｖ米切尔ＰＥ,刘子明译;贝叶斯定理用于决策——由结果推断原因[J];价值工程;1996年05期
7 张成敏;个案与逻辑认知[J];法学研究;2002年04期
8 郑永流;;法律判断大小前提的建构及其方法[J];法学研究;2006年04期
9 张静;法律推理的逻辑分析[J];探索;2003年03期
10 孙名符,蒙虎;波利亚合情推理的成功与不足[J];数学教育学报;1998年03期
本文编号：2207660
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2207660.html
