司法裁决推理研究

发布时间：2018-06-02 12:48

本文选题：司法裁决 + 推理　；参考：《西南大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：本文研究的是狭义的司法裁决推理,即法官以裁判规范命题为大前提,以法律事实命题为小前提,通过推理得出裁决结论的思维过程,而对这一主题的研究紧紧围绕司法裁决结论是如何得出,即司法裁决推理的一般路径、特点、满足的条件等问题进行。之所以以此为研究主题,主要基于以下背景：从理论研究视角看,自从形式主义法律适用观遭到了国内外法学界和法律逻辑界的批判后,一些与司法裁决相关的问题,比如逻辑“演绎”方法和法律方法各自在司法裁决中扮演何种角色、发挥怎样的作用、司法裁决推理结论是否逻辑得出、能否以及如何形式化等问题在法律逻辑界并没有得到清晰、明确的解释,而且还产生了很多争议,甚至还存在一些误解。从我国司法实践看,法官在裁决思维中存在倒置推理、无因推理、把或然推理当作必然推理等不能正确使用推理和过分依赖经验和直觉的“估堆”裁决现象,这导致了同案不同判、刑法中量刑畸轻畸重等司法不公现象,引起了社会公众对司法裁决公信力的质疑。本文主要从法律逻辑的视角研究司法裁决推理,对司法裁决推理的构成要素、形式结构、特点进行分析。由于司法裁决推理不同于单纯的逻辑推理,它有极为丰富的实质内容和很强的实践理性等诸多特点,本文顺应法律逻辑界提出的“法律逻辑法理化”的主张,研究司法裁决推理从法律开始,兼顾了对司法裁决推理实质内容的分析和研究。另外,本文的研究也采用了理论与实际相联系的方法,从我国的法律和司法实际出发,对发生在我国司法实践中的典型案例进行理论上的分析和检讨。通过研究,我们认为：(1)从思维的角度而言,作为司法裁决推理的大前提是法官在一国法律制度体系(法律规范命题集)中通过评价和选择所得到的法律规范命题,小前提是法官在确认事实并对其法律评价基础上的法律事实命题,它们应当满足真实、正当等条件。(2)价值和经验判断等法律方法帮助构建了两个前提,为司法裁决推理的进行创造了条件,但法律方法不可能承担和代替裁决结论逻辑得出所依赖的逻辑推理方法。(3)一旦裁决推理的前提得以构建,作为裁决推理大前提的裁判规范的逻辑结构决定了得出裁决结论的“模式”就是逻辑演绎的,而且正是演绎特性决定了它在逻辑上能够被形式化。(4)法学界和法律逻辑界在批判形式主义法律适用观的的过程中对裁决推理中演绎方法的批判存在不合理性,我们不能否认司法裁决过程中“演绎”方法在得到有效、公正的裁决结论等方面的积极作用。法律的正义最终是通过法官的裁决活动得以实现的,而司法裁决推理正确与否决定了裁决结论的合法性与正当性。所以,对司法裁决推理进行研究,理论上有利于理清司法裁决推理中一些概念之间的关系,消除一些理论误区,推动研究的发展。实践上有利于帮助司法人员树立科学的法律适用观,正确使用司法裁决推理以逻辑得出正当的裁决结论,减少和消除错案,实现法律的公平、正义目的。
[Abstract]:This paper studies the narrow sense of judicial adjudication reasoning, that is, the judge takes the referee standard propositions as the big premise and the legal fact proposition as the small premise, and draws the conclusion of the conclusion through reasoning, and the research on this subject is closely related to the conclusion of judicial adjudication, that is, the general path, characteristics and satisfaction of judicial adjudication reasoning. Problems such as parts are carried out.
The main topic is based on the following background: from the perspective of theoretical research, since the concept of formalistic legal application has been criticized by the legal and legal circles both at home and abroad, some questions related to judicial decisions, such as the role of logic "deductive" and law methods in judicial decisions, are discussed. How to play the role, whether the reasoning conclusion of judicial decision is logical, whether or not how to form, and how to formalize the legal logic has not been clearly and clearly explained, and there are many disputes, even there are some misunderstandings. From our judicial practice, the judges have inverted reasoning in the judgment thinking, and there is no reason for reasoning. The phenomenon of "estimating pile", which can not use reasoning and excessive reliance on experience and intuition, can not be used correctly and too much on intuition, which leads to judicial unfairness such as sentencing and sentencing in criminal law, which causes the public to question the public credibility of judicial adjudication.
This paper mainly studies the reasoning of judicial adjudication from the perspective of legal logic, and analyzes the elements, structure and characteristics of the reasoning of judicial adjudication. Because the reasoning of judicial adjudication is different from simple logic reasoning, it has many characteristics such as very rich substance and strong practical reason. This article conforms to the legal logic. The idea of legal logic jurisprudence, the study of judicial adjudication reasoning starts from the law, and gives consideration to the analysis and study of the substantive content of judicial adjudication reasoning. In addition, this study also adopts the method of relation between theory and practice. From the legal and judicial practice of our country, the typical cases in the judicial practice of our country are carried out. Theoretical analysis and review.
Through the study, we think: (1) from the perspective of thinking, the big premise for the reasoning of judicial adjudication is that the judge has obtained the legal propositions through evaluation and selection in the legal system of a country (the set of legal norms). The small premise is the legal fact proposition on the basis of the judge's confirmation of the facts and its legal evaluation. The legal methods, such as value and experience judgment, help to build two prerequisites to create conditions for the reasoning of judicial adjudication, but the legal method can not assume and replace the logic of the decision conclusion. (3) (3) once the premise of the adjudication is constructed, it can be used as a verdict. The logical structure of a referee's norm on the premise of reasoning decides that the "pattern" of the conclusion of the adjudication is logical deduction, and it is the deductive character that determines its logic in formalization. (4) the critical preservation of the deductive method in the reasoning of the reasoning in the process of critical formalism in the process of criticizing the applicable view of formalism by law and legal logic. In terms of irrationality, we can not deny the positive role of the "deductive" approach in achieving effective and fair conclusions in judicial decisions.
The justice of the law is finally realized through the judge's adjudication activities, and the correctness of the judicial adjudication determines the legitimacy and legitimacy of the conclusion of the adjudication. Therefore, the research on the reasoning of judicial adjudication is beneficial to clarify the relationship between some concepts in the reasoning of judicial adjudication and eliminate some theoretical misunderstandings and promote the research. In practice, it will help the judiciary to set up a scientific concept of legal application, correctly use judicial adjudication reasoning to logically draw proper conclusions, reduce and eliminate misjudged cases, and realize the fairness and justice of the law.
【学位授予单位】：西南大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D926.2

【参考文献】