刑事审判中的司法能动主义与司法克制主义之辩

发布时间：2018-07-05 15:44

本文选题：司法能动主义 + 司法克制主义　；参考：《山西大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：司法能动主义和司法克制主义是法学理论中相对应的两种司法哲学,二者处在不断斗争而又此消彼长的状态下。目前我国尚无明确的司法哲学,而明确在刑事审判中应奉行什么样的司法哲学又尤为重要。本文通过对司法能动主义与司法克制主义的历史进程的梳理、法哲学基础的阐释、以及对它们的比较分析来试图寻求适合于我国当前的司法哲学。第一部分：本文开篇首先对二者的概念作出梳理,以及通过和“能动司法”、“主动司法”等与二者相关的其他概念进行比较分析,使我们对司法能动主义与司法克制主义的概念有个明晰的界定和认识；然后,对二者的法哲学基础进行了分析,司法能动主义的法哲学基础是自然法学和法社会学,而司法克制主义的法哲学基础是实证分析主义法学。通过对二者法哲学基础的阐释,凸现了二者在法学理论中所处的重要地位。第二部分：通过对二者的历史进程的研究,可以使我们对二者的历史渊源有清晰的认识,并且在对历史演进的研究中,可以预测二者未来的发展走向。第三部分：文中此部分从具体的案例入手来展示二者在刑事审判中的体现,可以看出二者重要的实践意义。第四部分：通过对二者思想理念、宪政根基以及二者优势、劣势的比较,展示了各自的特点和作用,从而使我们对其有更为客观、全面的了解。第五部分：通过分析研究我国目前刑事审判中司法能动与司法克制的现状,根据我国刑事审判领域的特殊性,结合我国当前的法治建设能力和水平以及当前我国的社会现状得出取向,即我国刑事审判中应以司法克制主义为主,司法能动主义为辅,并且应明确司法能动主义适用的条件。以我国目前的法治建设能力和水平来说,我国的法治观念淡薄,人们对权力的信仰要大于对法律的信仰,各种权能错位,以及我国的法官队伍的整体素质和职业能力与法治水平高的国家差距还较大,尤其是刑事审判领域具有特殊性,不同于民事、行政等领域,因此,我们在刑事审判中应坚守司法克制主义的阵地。然而,再完美的法律也有局限性,难以面面俱到,况且我国目前正处于社会的转型时期,矛盾多发,为了有效地处理矛盾纠纷,维护社会的稳定,客观上要求我们应以司法能动主义为补充。但是司法能动主义作为例外,要明确其适用范围以及界限要求,其只有在法律规定缺位或者适用现行法律会产生明显不合理的裁判结果时才能适用,并且在适用时要遵循一定的原则。通过本文的研究分析,我认为目前我国在刑事审判领域应以司法克制主义为主、司法能动主义为辅,这是适合于当前我国法治实践的选择。
[Abstract]:Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two kinds of judicial philosophy corresponding to the theory of law. At present, there is no clear judicial philosophy in our country, and it is particularly important to make clear what kind of judicial philosophy should be pursued in criminal trial. By combing the historical process of judicial activism and judicial restraint, the foundation of legal philosophy and their comparative analysis, this paper tries to seek a suitable judicial philosophy for our country. Part one: the first part of this paper makes a combing of the two concepts, and compares them with other related concepts, such as "active justice", "active justice" and so on. It makes us have a clear definition and understanding of the concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint, and then analyzes the legal philosophical basis of judicial activism, which is based on natural jurisprudence and sociology of law. The legal philosophy of judicial restraint is empirical and analytical jurisprudence. Through the explanation of the philosophical basis of law, the important position of them in the theory of law is highlighted. The second part: through the study of the historical process of the two, we can have a clear understanding of the historical origin of the two, and in the study of historical evolution, we can predict the future development of the two. The third part: this part from the concrete cases to show the two in the criminal trial, we can see the two important practical significance. The fourth part: through the comparison of their ideas, constitutional foundations and their advantages and disadvantages, it shows their respective characteristics and functions, so that we can have a more objective and comprehensive understanding of them. Part five: according to the particularity of criminal trial in our country, through the analysis and research on the current situation of judicial activity and judicial restraint in our country's criminal trial. Combined with the current construction ability and level of the rule of law in our country and the current social situation of our country, this paper draws a conclusion that the criminal trial in our country should be dominated by judicial restraint doctrine, supplemented by judicial activism, and the conditions for judicial activism should be clearly defined. In view of our country's current ability and level of building the rule of law, the concept of rule of law in our country is weak, people's belief in power is greater than that in law, and all kinds of power are misplaced. And the gap between the overall quality and professional ability of the judges in our country and the high level of the rule of law is still large, especially in the field of criminal justice, which is different from civil, administrative and other fields. We should stick to the position of judicial restraint in criminal trials. However, no matter how perfect the law is, it is difficult to cover all aspects. Moreover, our country is currently in a period of social transformation, with frequent contradictions. In order to effectively handle contradictions and disputes and maintain social stability, Objectively, we should be supplemented by judicial activism. However, judicial activism, as an exception, should be clear about its scope of application and the requirements of its limits. It can only be applied when the legal provisions are absent or the application of the existing law will produce obviously unreasonable judicial results. And in the application of certain principles to be followed. Through the research and analysis of this paper, I believe that judicial restraint should be the main principle in the field of criminal justice, and judicial activism should be supplemented, which is suitable for the current practice of the rule of law in our country.
【学位授予单位】：山西大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926

【参考文献】