判例法中的同案同判问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-02 19:32

本文选题：判例法 + 先例　；参考：《北方工业大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：在现代社会中,法治与平等是人们追求的价值目标,法律的基本精神在于维护和实现"同案同判"的正义形式。在司法裁判中做到同案同判,不仅是法治与平等的基本要求,也是法律确定性与可预期性的基本要求,以及其自生自发的价值目标。然而在实践中同案不同判现象却时有发生,可以说是司法过程的衍生之物,由于法律体系的不完善,法律之间的矛盾,法律语言的模糊性,法律解释的主观性以及法官的个人因素等原因而产生。在以遵循先例为原则的判例法国家,法官被要求同样情形同样对待,看似能够很好地做到同案同判。但是由于先例有时并不形成明确的规则,先例规则往往是由后案法官确定的;先例中的不同意见:先例中不仅有多数意见,还有协同意见和反对意见,这些不同意见成为后案法官修正、改变甚至推翻先例的说服力理由;由于信赖利益的变化以及法律工作的合法性,法官能够推翻错误或者已经过时了的先例;法官对于先例的不同解读,使得法官在个案审判中对先例进行的限制或者扩大解释;法官在审判中的诸如个人偏好和厌恶异议等隐蔽性心理,促使法官对案件事实进行裁剪,这些情况都会导致同案不同判现象的发生。哈特以规则理论下的"意思中心说"以及法官个人的内在约束,德沃金以原则理论下的建构性解释以及整体性法律,孙斯坦以未完全理论化的共识下的最窄、最浅司法以及类比推理,试图解决、解答同案同判中的相关问题。但是他们的理论仍然无法避免法律语言自身的模糊性、法律解释的主观性、以及法官个人偏好和厌恶异议等因素,仍然存在同案不同判的可能。在判例法国家的司法实践中,法官们运用区别技术以更好地遵循先例,实现同案同判,然而法官在运用这一区别技术的过程中,仍然无法避免同案不同判现象的发生。
[Abstract]:In modern society, the rule of law and equality is the value goal that people pursue, the basic spirit of law lies in maintaining and realizing the just form of "co-adjudication". It is not only the basic requirement of rule of law and equality, but also the basic requirement of legal certainty and predictability, as well as its spontaneous value goal. However, in practice, the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case occurs from time to time, which can be said to be a derivative of the judicial process. Because of the imperfection of the legal system, the contradiction between the laws, the ambiguity of the legal language, The subjective nature of legal interpretation and the personal factors of the judge come into being. In a case law country that follows the principle of precedent, judges are required to be treated in the same way and appear to be able to do the same. However, because precedents sometimes do not form clear rules, precedent rules are often determined by the judge in the latter case; dissenting views in precedents: there is not only a majority of views in precedents, but also synergistic and dissenting opinions. These dissenting opinions become the persuasive reason for the judge to amend, change or even overturn the precedent; because of the change of trust interests and the legality of the legal work, the judge can overturn the wrong or outdated precedent; The different interpretations of precedents by judges make judges restrict or expand their interpretation of precedents in individual cases, and the hidden psychology of judges in trial, such as personal preference and disgust, urges judges to cut the facts of cases. These circumstances will lead to the occurrence of different judgments in the same case. Hart regards the "meaning center" under the rule theory as well as the inherent restriction of the judge, Dworkin takes the constructional interpretation and the holistic law under the principle theory, and Sun Stein is the narrowest under the consensus that is not completely theorized. The shallowest judicial and analogical reasoning tries to solve and solve the related problems in the co-judgment. However, their theories still can not avoid the ambiguity of legal language itself, the subjectivity of legal interpretation, as well as the judges' personal preference and disgust, and so on, and there is still the possibility of different judgments in the same case. In the judicial practice of the case law country, the judges use the difference technique to follow the precedent better and realize the same judgment in the same case. However, in the process of applying this difference technique, the judge still cannot avoid the phenomenon of different judgment in the same case.
【学位授予单位】：北方工业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D926.2

【参考文献】