刚弱两需分野下我国判决说理模式新探——以S市F区法院判决书为样本的研究

发布时间：2018-05-06 16:36

本文选题：判决说理 + 刚需说理　；参考：《法制与社会发展》2015年03期

【摘要】：目前判决说理的批评存在起点式的错误,判决说理应当分清"弱需说理"与"刚需说理"。通过对S市F区法院刑事判决样本分析,70%-80%的判决属于"弱需说理"案件,不需要详尽说明理由。"刚需说理"只占案件总量较少部分。从F区的"刚需说理"案的判决情况来看,其判决说理有了较大改善,但也存在需要继续改善的技术性问题,即争议事实单独列明;争议证据单独列明;争议证据与矛盾事实之间关联性应单独列明;法律适用说理中应并行形式推理与实质推理,刑事判决应增加量刑说理。在比较法视野上考察国外判决说理的真实情况,公众对法院的判决说理期待需要观念重塑,由此得出的评价才会更加客观。
[Abstract]:At present, the criticism of judgment reasoning has a starting-point error, and judgment reasoning should distinguish between "weak reasoning" and "rigid demand reasoning". By analyzing the sample of the criminal judgment of the F District Court of S City, 70% to 80% of the judgments belong to the "weak reasoning" case, without the need to explain the reasons in detail. " Rigid demand reasoning "only accounts for a small part of the total number of cases." Judging from the judgment in the case of "rigid demand reasoning" in area F, the judgment reasoning has been greatly improved, but there are still some technical problems that need to be improved, that is, the facts of dispute are listed separately, the evidence of dispute is listed separately; The correlation between disputed evidence and contradictory facts should be listed separately; in the reasoning of legal application, the reasoning of form and substance should be parallel, and the reasoning of sentencing should be increased in criminal judgment. From the perspective of comparative law, it is necessary for the public to remold the concept of judgment reasoning in foreign countries, so that the evaluation will be more objective.
【作者单位】：嘉兴学院;上海市奉贤区人民检察院;
【基金】：中国法学会课题“农民工身份影响量刑差异的实证研究”阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D926

【参考文献】