法律推理中的逻辑与经验研究
发布时间:2018-04-21 20:19
本文选题:法律推理 + 三段论 ; 参考:《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文
【摘要】:如果说,司法倒推是目前法律推理过程中普遍存在的一种惯常现象的话,那么,同案异判则是各国司法实践中亟待合理应对的棘手问题,二者以经验与逻辑(或者说是过程与结果)的形式既存于法律推理的“矛盾律”之中。同案异判现象客观上昭示了法律推理实质是一条充满分叉选择的道路,法官通常基于内心的确信作出主观选择;司法倒推则表现为法官一般情况下都是先凭借过往的司法经验形成对案件的预判,然后以归纳和类比作为法律推理的逻辑起点,进而对事实进行剪裁并据以寻找相应的适用依据。我国现有的法律推理模式以三段论为主导,以演绎作为逻辑起点,通过蕴含关系保障结论的唯一有效。作为小前提的案件事实,其认定过程本质上属于概率性的合情推理,而作为大前提的法律规则在适用中存在疑义和冲突,二者无法满足演绎逻辑对前提真实、唯一的客观要求。推理的本质是逻辑与经验相互作用的产物:逻辑贯穿于法律推理的全过程,经验以法则的形式构筑起推理的前提,并以说理的形式填补于逻辑的缝隙之中。一方面,形式逻辑保障法律推理的公平性、融贯性;另一方面,形式逻辑的封闭性、必然性与法律推理的可废止性、盖然性之间却难以协调。形式逻辑和法律推理的调和只有被扩展到演绎之外才可能实现。法律推理是事实与案件之间的双向互动,三段论下逻辑的单一性和单向性,使法律推理仍然停留在形式逻辑的简单应用,亦无法回应推理实践中存在的现象。且三段论下的法律推理缺少灵活性和弹性的空间,解释是法官解决疑难案件的唯一手段,难免陷入循环定义的怪圈。法律推理在实践中的多样选择,对现有的模式形成倒逼,司法改革中案例指导制度的确立,本质上便是类推与归纳的综合运用;法官需要从推理的形式向实质转变,加强裁判说理的论证过程,而非仅满足于形式上的唯一确定。
[Abstract]:If it is said that judicial backstepping is a common phenomenon in the process of legal reasoning, the same case is a difficult problem in the judicial practice of all countries. The two forms in the form of experience and logic (or the process and result) exist in the "contradiction law" of legal reasoning. The phenomenon of the same case is different. It is an objective manifestation that the essence of legal reasoning is a path full of bifurcations. Judges usually make subjective choices based on their inner conviction, and judicial backstepping shows that judges generally form a pre judgment of cases by virtue of past judicial experience in general, and then use induction and analogy as the logical starting point for legal reasoning, and then, In our country, the existing legal reasoning model is dominated by syllogism and the only validity of the deduction as a logical starting point and by implication relationship. As a small premise case fact, the process of its identification is essentially an inferential reasoning, and the law as a major premise. There are doubts and conflicts in the application of the rules. The two are unable to meet the objective requirements of the deductive logic to the premise. The essence of the reasoning is the product of the interaction between logic and experience: logic runs through the whole process of legal reasoning, and experience builds the premise of reasoning in the form of law, and fills the gap in logic in the form of reasoning. On the one hand, formal logic guarantees the fairness and coherence of legal reasoning; on the other hand, the closure of the formal logic, the inevitability of necessity and the revocability of legal reasoning, and the difference between the probability of legal reasoning. The harmony between formal logic and legal reasoning can be realized only when it is extended to deductive. Legal reasoning is between facts and cases. The two-way interaction, the single and unidirectional logic under the syllogism makes the legal reasoning still stay in the simple application of the formal logic, and can not respond to the phenomena in the reasoning practice. And the legal reasoning under the syllogism lacks flexibility and flexibility. Interpretation is the only means for the judges to resolve the difficult cases and inevitably fall into the circle. The various choices of legal reasoning in practice, the formation of the existing model, the establishment of the case guidance system in the judicial reform, is essentially the comprehensive use of analogy and induction; the judge needs to change from the form of reasoning to the substance, to strengthen the process of the justification of the referee, but not only to satisfy the sole determination in the form.
【学位授予单位】:湘潭大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2017
【分类号】:D90-051
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前2条
1 封利强;;司法证明机理:一个亟待开拓的研究领域[J];法学研究;2012年02期
2 曾毅;熊艳;;从法律形式主义到法律现实主义[J];求索;2010年01期
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 杨敏;论大前提缺失的司法推理[D];西南政法大学;2009年
2 张学超;法律推理与法律论证的比较研究[D];河南大学;2008年
,本文编号:1783954
本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/shoufeilunwen/shuoshibiyelunwen/1783954.html