论事实认定中概括的运用与规制——以“彭宇案”为视角的考察

发布时间：2019-04-19 08:50

【摘要】："概括"是推理链条中联结证据性事实与推断性事实的黏合剂,也是推断性事实和要素性事实的粘合剂,对于案件事实的重构必不可少。然而,"概括"必须依赖人们拥有的知识库,知识库中各种知识的复杂性及某些知识的不可靠性,决定了蕴含于推理链条每一步骤中的概括之强度,有时候是虚弱的。因此,"概括"对于事实认定来说,虽然必要但却危险。如何对事实认定中概括的运用进行规制,是我们必须正视的问题。虽然不要求所有的概括必须具有"高强度",但必须经得起"合理性"的最低标准检验。因此,公开事实认定者心理活动的某些内容,将隐性的概括明示化,及坚持案件事实的"集体认定",有助于揭示事实认定过程中某些明显不合逻辑的概括,降低因概括运用不当导致事实被误认的风险。
[Abstract]:"generalization" is the bond between evidentiary facts and inferential facts in the chain of reasoning, and it is also the adhesive of inferred facts and essential facts. It is necessary for the reconstruction of the facts of a case. However, "generalization" must rely on the knowledge base that people have. The complexity of all kinds of knowledge in the knowledge base and the unreliability of some knowledge determine the intensity of generalization contained in each step of the reasoning chain, sometimes weak. As a result, generalizations are necessary but dangerous to factual assertions. How to regulate the use of generalizations in fact recognition is a problem that we must face squarely. Although not all generalizations must have "high strength", they must stand the minimum test of reasonableness. Therefore, it is helpful to reveal some obviously illogical generalizations in the process of cognizance of facts by revealing some contents of psychological activities of those who identify facts openly, showing the recessive generalizations of facts and insisting on the "collective identification" of facts in cases. Reduce the risk that facts are misrecognized as a result of improper use of generalizations.
【作者单位】：西藏民族大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学研究青年项目“和谐西藏建设背景下的民事纠纷解决机制研究——以司法文明为视角的考察”(项目号:13YJC820104)阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】