关于我国司法审判中的法律推理研究

发布时间：2018-09-15 19:16

【摘要】： 近年来,国内外专家学者对于法律推理展开了广泛而深入的研究,根据法律推理内容的差异性,学者对法律推理有不同的认识。大多数学者认为法律推理的过程是形式逻辑推理与辨证推理的结合,既有形式合法性的外在诉求,又有实质合理性的内在追寻。本文通过对司法审判活动中法官运用的法律推理进行相关分析研究,以勾勒出法律推理的粗略面貌。 论文正文共分三部分。 第一部分是法律推理的概述,主要从法律推理的概念、分类、特征等方面进行了简单的梳理,指出了目前有关法律推理的研究状况。依据传统的观点,法律推理主要分为形式法律推理和实质法律推理。形式法律推理,是从法律推理的形式结构上加以认识,着重对法律推理大小前提的逻辑关系进行分析,暂时撇开了法律推理中前提和结论判断所反映的具体内容,它主要包含了演绎推理和归纳推理。而实质法律推理是在法律适用过程中,在对相关的法律的规定或案件的事实进行分析的基础上,结合一定的价值判断,对案件作出判决的推理过程,实质法律推理和形式法律推理的联系非常紧密,实质法律推理是对形式法律推理的有益补充,而形式法律推理是实质法律推理的前提,两者共存于司法实践当中,缺一不可。此外,文中还分析了实践中法律推理的主要方法,有助于更好地对其进行运用。法律推理作为一种思维模式和技术方法,有着与众不同的特征,它表现的是一种逻辑与经验相结合,以实现法治为目标,并且推理主体发挥主观能动性的过程。 第二部分主要对我国司法实践中的法律推理所存在的问题进行研究,指出了法律推理在审判中的应用存在着哪些瓶颈。由于受长期的历史传统和司法习惯的影响,实践中的法律推理存在着许多不足之处,如重法律知识轻推理能力、重言词证据轻逻辑推理、重法条援引轻理由阐述、重形式法律推理轻实质法律推理等。 第三部分通过审视我国司法实践中运用法律推理存在的诸多问题,从理论与实践的双重视野来探寻问题的解决路径。在理论视角下,本文首先分析了形式法律推理的局限性,然后重点强调了实质法律推理的价值,实质法律推理关注推理的内容,并把对推理前提的证成纳入到了其关怀之中,承认价值判断的存在,是对形式法律推理缺陷的弥补。在实践层面上,在对现今司法审判存在的问题进行分析的基础上,提出一些解决措施如:必须提高法官逻辑推理素质、加强最高法院判例对案件的参考性、明确裁判文书的推理过程、加强证据规则的改革、加强司法审判体制改革等。要解决我国法律推理的现实困境,必须从这些方面入手,循序渐进,不断增强法官运用法律推理的自觉性与技术性,为我国司法发展做出努力。
[Abstract]:In recent years, experts and scholars at home and abroad have carried out extensive and in-depth research on legal reasoning, according to the differences in the content of legal reasoning, scholars have different understanding of legal reasoning. Most scholars believe that the process of legal reasoning is the combination of formal logic reasoning and dialectical reasoning, which has the external demand of formal legitimacy and the internal pursuit of substantive rationality. In this paper, the author analyzes and studies the legal reasoning used by judges in judicial activities to outline the rough appearance of legal reasoning. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part is an overview of legal reasoning, mainly from the concept of legal reasoning, classification, characteristics and other aspects of a simple comb, pointing out the current situation of research on legal reasoning. According to the traditional view, legal reasoning is mainly divided into formal legal reasoning and substantive legal reasoning. Formal legal reasoning is based on the understanding of the formal structure of legal reasoning, focusing on the analysis of the logical relationship of the legal reasoning premises, and temporarily disregarding the concrete contents reflected by the premise and the conclusion judgment in the legal reasoning. It mainly includes deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Substantive legal reasoning is the reasoning process of judgment in the process of application of law, on the basis of analyzing the relevant legal provisions or the facts of the case, and combining with certain value judgment. Substantive legal reasoning is closely related to formal legal reasoning. Substantive legal reasoning is a useful supplement to formal legal reasoning, and formal legal reasoning is the premise of substantive legal reasoning. In addition, the paper also analyzes the main methods of legal reasoning in practice, which is helpful to its better application. Legal reasoning, as a mode of thinking and a technical method, has its distinctive characteristics. It shows a process of combining logic with experience, aiming at the realization of the rule of law, and the process of the reasoning subject exerting its subjective initiative. The second part mainly studies the problems of legal reasoning in judicial practice in our country, and points out the bottlenecks in the application of legal reasoning in trial. Because of the influence of long history tradition and judicial custom, there are many deficiencies in the legal reasoning in practice, such as the emphasis on legal knowledge and reasoning ability, the emphasis on verbal evidence and logical reasoning, and the emphasis on invoking laws and discounting reasons. Emphasis on formal legal reasoning over substantive legal reasoning and so on. In the third part, by examining the problems existing in the application of legal reasoning in judicial practice in our country, the author tries to explore the solution of the problem from the perspective of both theory and practice. From the perspective of theory, this paper first analyzes the limitations of formal legal reasoning, then emphasizes the value of substantive legal reasoning, pays attention to the content of substantive legal reasoning, and brings the proof of reasoning premise into its care. To recognize the existence of value judgment is to remedy the defects of formal legal reasoning. On the practical level, on the basis of analyzing the problems existing in the current judicial trial, some solutions are put forward, such as improving the judge's logical reasoning quality and strengthening the reference of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence to the case. Make clear the reasoning process of the judgment document, strengthen the reform of the evidence rule, strengthen the reform of the judicial system and so on. In order to solve the practical dilemma of legal reasoning in our country, we must proceed from these aspects, step by step, constantly enhance the consciousness and technology of judges' application of legal reasoning, and make great efforts for the development of our country's judicature.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D90-051

【引证文献】

中国硕士学位论文全文数据库 前1条

1 王孟斐;我国司法裁判方法研究[D];郑州大学;2011年

，

本文编号：2244228