基于多学科视域的案件事实认定逻辑结构模型研究

发布时间：2018-08-29 19:05

【摘要】：“事实是什么”乃哲学千古之迷,司法中的“事实真相”则是司法理论和实践最棘手而又必须解决的难题。本文在社会认识论建构主义理论、结构主义理论和实践哲学整体论等哲学理论指导下,试图从哲学认知理论方面探讨事实认定的逻辑结构模型,以法律逻辑为主线,并从逻辑学、修辞学、叙事学、商谈对话理论及科学哲学等多学科视角,建构一个综合性事实认定逻辑结构模型。案件事实认定过程是一个复杂的经验推论过程,包括逻辑推理、解释、修辞叙事和对话论辩等。案件事实认定的逻辑推理过程,包含着演绎推理、归纳推理、合情推理等多种推理形式的运用。目前法律逻辑的主要发展趋向是非形式逻辑,这是由法律推理的本质决定的。面对司法实践中的案件事实认定过程,必须采用非形式逻辑方法并综合多学科视角,将影响案件事实认定过程的各种因素都考虑进来,以充分展示案件实事认定的推理过程的非形式方面,以期充分揭示司法事实认定过程的多学科认知过程,为司法实践尽可能提供一种切合实际需要的案件事实认定模型。本文基于上述思路,首先论述了事实认定模型、事实、证据及其关系等基础理论,以及建构主义和结构主义哲学观；接着论述了各种事实认定模型下描述的事实建构过程,即证据资料→证据性事实→推断性事实→要件事实→案件事实,分析了证据资料形成为证据性事实进而建构案件事实的过程。然后,运用这些模型分析了邓玉娇案,并指出各种理论模型的局限。其中,以建构事实认定的一般逻辑结构模型为目标,讨论了事实构建过程涵摄的演绎推理、归类归纳推理和合情推理的逻辑类型,分析了其逻辑推理结构的模型图；以建构事实认定的解释学模型为目标,讨论了解释学相关理论,分析了事实建构中的解释视域融合过程和解释学循环等方法；以建构事实认定的最佳解释推理模型为目标,重点讨论了科学哲学中的最佳解释推理理论(IBE),以及该理论在司法领域的运用,尝试将逻辑推理结构的模型和事实认定的解释学模型与科学哲学中的最佳解释推理理论(IBE)进行有机融合,构建事实认定IBE模型结构；以建构事实认定的修辞叙事模型,论述了修辞学的“目的论型”思维、“叙事”作为理解生活的重要模型,以及案件事实构建的故事模型；以建构研究事实认定的对话论辩模型为目标,讨论了法律商谈和对话理论,及在案件事实认定中必须遵循的程序和规则。基于对上述事实认定模型的分别建构,本文试图构建一种事实认定的综合逻辑结构模型。该模型将案件事实的认定分为两个逻辑结构阶段：第一阶段,由双方当事人根据证据建构自己讲述的故事,并攻击对方的故事及其建构过程中使用的证据等问题;第二阶段,则由法庭事实认定者对当事人提出的对抗性故事进行选择,选择其最能接受的故事,或自行重建新的故事。该模型的逻辑构造及逻辑证明活动,从而保证了案件事实认定的准确性或似真性。按照这种事实认定综合模型,诉讼双方以讲故事的形式建构案件事实,事实认定者则通过经验推论重建案件事实,其实质是语言修辞和解释：语言的解释和叙事机制使法庭成为人间戏剧的演出场所,案件的历史事实在“演出”中演化成了多个不同的“剧本”,各色人等扮演着不同的角色,事实重建似乎是一场灵活多变的证据“拼图游戏”。在各方当事人的对话论辩中,各方当事人将“前见”生活经验、常识等隐性知识与证据资料进行“视域融合”,并进行经验推论,共同建构出生动形象的案情。在整个法庭场景(scenarios)中,论辩程序为证据证明、案件事实认定、彰显司法的神圣、公正、民主和权威等提供了保证。在建构新的事实认定模型之际,本文还将探讨对话论辩规则、解释方法、情节化叙事方法及检验标准等问题。文章最后,对当今中国司法改革如何借鉴西方两大法系的作法做出反思,并将本文提出的事实认定模型与协同型事实认定模型和系统模型等最新事实认定模型作了比较,对丰富事实认定的综合模型的进一步工作作出展望。本文研究突破了过去对案件事实认定研究的单一学科视角,将案件事实认定的逻辑推理过程看作一个具体的实践过程,从多学科视角来研究它,建立真正能够解释司法实践中案件实事认定过程的模型。这样的理论模型,能够为现实的诉讼中事实认定提供支持或批判的理论依据,为中国司法制度改革实践提供理论支撑,因而具有一定的应用价值。
[Abstract]:"What is the fact" is a perpetual mystery of philosophy, and "the fact" in judicature is the most difficult and difficult problem to be solved in judicial theory and practice. This paper tries to discuss the fact determination from the perspective of philosophical cognitive theory under the guidance of social epistemology constructivism theory, structuralism theory and practical philosophy holism. The logical structure model takes legal logic as the main line, and constructs a comprehensive logical structure model of fact determination from the perspective of logic, rhetoric, narratology, conversational theory and philosophy of science.
The process of case fact determination is a complex process of empirical inference, including logical reasoning, interpretation, rhetorical narration and dialogical argument. The process of logical reasoning of case fact determination includes the use of deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, reasonable reasoning and other forms of reasoning. It is determined by the nature of legal reasoning. Facing the process of determining the facts of a case in judicial practice, it is necessary to adopt informal logic method and integrate multi-disciplinary perspectives, to take into account all kinds of factors affecting the process of determining the facts of a case, so as to fully display the informal aspects of the reasoning process of determining the facts of a case, so as to fully reveal the judiciary. The multi-disciplinary cognitive process of fact-finding provides a model of case fact-finding which meets the actual needs for judicial practice.
Based on the above ideas, this paper firstly discusses the basic theories of factual cognizance model, facts, evidence and their relations, as well as constructivism and structuralist philosophy, and then discusses the process of factual construction described under various factual cognizance models, that is, evidence data, evidential facts, inferential facts, essential facts and case facts. This paper analyzes the process of the formation of evidential data as evidential facts and then constructs the facts of the case. Then, it uses these models to analyze the Deng Yujiao case and points out the limitations of various theoretical models. Among them, it discusses the deductive reasoning, categorized inductive reasoning and inductive reasoning of the connotation of the process of factual construction with the goal of constructing the general logical structure model of factual determination. The logical types of reasonable reasoning are analyzed, and the model diagram of its logical reasoning structure is analyzed; the relevant theories of hermeneutics are discussed with the aim of constructing the hermeneutic model of factual confirmation, the fusion process of hermeneutic horizons in factual construction and the hermeneutic cycle are analyzed; the goal is to construct the best interpretive reasoning model of factual confirmation, with emphasis on it. This paper discusses the theory of best interpretative reasoning (IBE) in philosophy of science and its application in the judicial field. It attempts to integrate the model of logical reasoning structure and the hermeneutic model of fact determination with the best interpretative reasoning theory (IBE) in philosophy of science, and to construct the IBE model structure of fact determination. The rhetorical narrative model discusses the "teleological" thinking of rhetoric, the "narrative" as an important model for understanding life, and the story model of case facts construction, the legal negotiation and dialogue theory, and the procedures and rules that must be followed in case facts determination, with the goal of constructing the model of dialogue and argument for the study of fact determination. Then.
Based on the construction of the above-mentioned model, this paper attempts to construct a comprehensive logical structure model of fact-finding. The model divides the identification of case facts into two logical stages: the first stage, the two parties construct their own stories according to the evidence, and attack each other's stories and their construction process. In the second stage, the court fact-finder chooses the confrontational story, chooses the most acceptable one, or rebuilds the new one by himself.
According to this comprehensive model of fact-finding, the litigants construct the case facts in the form of story-telling, while the fact-finders reconstruct the case facts through empirical inference. The essence of the model is linguistic rhetoric and interpretation: the interpretation and narrative mechanism of language make the court a place for the performance of human drama, and the historical facts of the case evolve in the "performance". In the dialogues and debates between the parties, the parties "fuse the foresight" of life experience, common sense and other tacit knowledge with the evidence data, and carry on the experience inference. In the whole scenarios, the argumentation procedure guarantees the evidence, the fact finding, the sacredness, justice, democracy and authority of the judiciary. And inspection standards.
In the end, the article reflects on how China's judicial reform can draw lessons from the practice of the two western legal systems, and compares the fact-finding model proposed in this paper with the latest fact-finding model, such as the collaborative fact-finding model and the system model, and looks forward to the further work of enriching the comprehensive model of fact-finding.
This paper breaks through the single disciplinary perspective of the past research on case fact determination, regards the logical reasoning process of case fact determination as a concrete practical process, studies it from a multi-disciplinary perspective, and establishes a model that can really explain the process of case fact determination in judicial practice. The fact finding in litigation provides theoretical basis for support or criticism, and provides theoretical support for the practice of China's judicial system reform, so it has certain application value.
【学位授予单位】：西南大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D90-051

【相似文献】