【作者】 周毅；

【导师】 何向东；

【作者基本信息】 西南大学 ， 逻辑学， 2014， 博士

【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。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper studies Reasoning of Judicial Decisions which takes the legal norms as the major premise and the ascertained legal facts as the minor premise and then obtains proper judicial conclusion(s) through certain logic and legal method(s). And this topic of the studies is about how to obtain conclusion of Judicial Decisions, namely, the general path, characteristics and conditions of Reasoning of Judicial Decisions.The research mainly based on the following background: From a theoretical perspective, Since Deductive reasoning is harshly criticized by legalists and logicians from both at home and abroad, some questions about Reasoning of Judicial Decisions are not explained clear and definitely. But it also produced a lot of controversy and there are some misunderstandings about it. Such as the role and play of "deductive" and legal method(s) in judicial decision, whether and how to obtain judicial decision logiclly, whether and how to formalize the Reasoning of Judicial Decisions, etc. Seen from the judicial practice in our country, there is questioning that the judge is use to "GuDui" by excessive reliance on experience and intuitionand, reach decisions without reasoning and make the reason as a result in decisions thinking, which leads to the different sentence same case and too light or too heavy Sentence which caused questions to impartiality and credibility of the judicial for people.The Reasoning of Judicial Decision is mainly studies from the perspective of legal logic. They are analyzed that elements, form structure and characteristics of Reasoning of Judicial Decisions.The judicial Decisions reasoning differs from that of pure logic reasoning because It’s abundant substanceand strong practical reason so substantive aspects of the judicial reasoning is study by comply with "legal logic method of Legal method " put forward by legal logic group. In addition, the typical cases occur in our country is analyzed and reviewed theoretically from the judicial practice in our country with the associated theory with practice method. By studying Reasoning of Judicial Decisions, we believe that:(1) From the Angle of thinking, The judge takes legal norms from the country’s legal system(legal norms proposition set) through the evaluation and selection in the proposition of legal norms as the major premise of Reasoning of Judicial Decisions, and takes the ascertained legal facts proposition that based on legal evaluation as the minor premise. Premises should be real, legitimate, etc.(2) Legal method as experience and value judgment are used only to build the premises and to create conditions for the Reasoning of Judicial Decisions, but it could not bear to replace logic reasoning method which lead to Decisions.(3) Once the premise of rule reasoning was build, the logic structure of the major premise determines "model" that is logical deduction lead to the Judicial conclusion, and Reasoning of Judicial Decisions can be formalized logically because of its deductive features.(4) It exist irrationality that critical view to deductive method of malism from legalists and logicians from both at home and abroad. We can’t deny the positive role of "deductive"by which obtain effective and fair Judicia conclusions in the process of judicial decisions.Legal justice is ultimately realized by the judge’s Judicial Decisions, whether this decision is correct that rely on the legitimacy of Decisions of Reasoning of Judicial. So to study Reasoning of Judicial Decisions is helpful to clarify the relationship of the concepts and to eliminate some theoretical misunderstandings about Reasoning of Judicial Decisions for people and promote the development of the research in iegal logic from theoretical. It is helpful to sets up the scientific view of the applicable law, to reach logically a judicial decision through correct Reasoning of Judicial Decisions, to reduce and eliminate the cases misjudged and realize the fairness and justicein accord with purpose of law from the judiciary practice.更多还原