【作者】 李树真；

【导师】 卞建林；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 司法证明结构是诉讼证明中的逻辑法则和经验法则发挥作用的基本空间,而司法证明结构就是双方当事人与法官之间围绕证明对象通过“对抗·说服——判定”活动而形成的较稳定的结构关系。司法证明应当限定在审判阶段控、辩、审三方在场的正式庭审或庭审前控、辩、审三方在场的规范程序场域之内。司法证明的过程可以从大的层面上区分“事实的发现”和“事实的证成”两个阶段,这两个阶段还可以从当事人视角和法官视角进行细化,对当事人而言就是“对抗·说服——判定”结构中的“告知(主张、举证)与说服”,对法官而言就是“对抗·说服——判定”结构中的“知”“信”“断”“喻”几个具体层面。诉讼结构、证明结构和论辩结构有着密切联系,论辩结构成为逻辑法则和经验法则作用于证明结构的具体形式。本文语境中,逻辑(法则)被界定为广义的逻辑,它本身是一个过程和结果的统一,它不仅包括将推理严格形式化而产生的推理形式、规则和规律,也包括一般形式化的过程与趋势本身。这样,立法的法典化和司法中的严格规则主义将被主要看成是逻辑化结果的表征。从宏观角度看,逻辑(法则)与司法证明的各个基本要素有着密切的关联:诉审关系中审判对象的明确和证明对象的界定与同一律相关,具体证明过程中证据矛盾的排除与不矛盾律密切相关,证明责任分配的基础理论与排中律的作用密切相关,而证明标准又与论证的充足理由原则形影相随。从微观角度看,逻辑(法则)为证据的关联性、直接证据与间接证据的分类、证据和证明对象推论关系的解释提供了逻辑合理性依据和用于具体解析的逻辑方法,在对司法证明过程予以精密化的过程中,表现出了一种对逻辑法则相对确定性、稳定性的基本诉求。同样在本文的语境中,经验(法则)意味着一种认识过程和这一过程结果的统一。对经验可以按照一定的标准进行分类,其中历史经验(既往经验)与当下经验、普通(一般)经验与特殊经验两种分类最为重要。经验与立法、司法活动有着密切关联,中国古代司法就有重视法官经验的司法传统。在确立形式理性法观念的今天,如何重新看待法官司法经验是一个重要的理论和现实问题。就具体司法证明过程而言,作为历史经验的经验法则和法官对具体证据的当下经验是需要予以关注的重点。经验法则是人们从经验归纳抽象中所获得的关于事物属性以及事物之间常态、稳定联系的一般性知识或法则,经验法则在司法证明中是作为证据推论证明对象的大前提而发挥作用的,但经验法则在具体运用过程中绝不是僵死的,它和法官对案件事实认知的当下经验紧密结合,二者之间保持着一种动态的调适和平衡关系。大陆法系和英美法系学者对经验法则(涵括)的理论和技术分析为我们理解和运用经验法则提供了便利。司法证明中法官的经验法则和当下经验为司法证明结论的可靠性提供了基本理性保障。证据规则与逻辑法则、经验法则具有密切关系。自由心证原则是构成自由心证证据制度合理性的基础原则,自由心证制度既需要保障同时需要制约,逻辑法则在司法证明中对自由心证的保障和限制主要表现为以下方面:1.逻辑法则在心证判断进行之前对证明对象、证据材料的选择和过滤;2.逻辑法则在心证形成过程中提供了思维自身合理性的保障;3.逻辑法则提供了对自由心证结果进行事后检测的工具和手段。同样,自由心证依赖并受制于经验过程,依赖和受制于经验法则。具体表现为:1.经验法则是法官进行判断的基本依据,2.在自由心证中法官对经验法则的选择要受到双方面制约。证据裁判原则与逻辑(法则)有密切联系,从非证据或无证据裁判到神示裁判,从神明裁判制度到法定证据制度,再从法定证据制度到现代自由心证制度,这本身是一个逻辑化的过程,逻辑为相应的证据制度提供了用于证明的基本逻辑结构和形式化方法。这一过程也是一个由单纯诉求形式理性到全面诉求形式理性和实质理性的过程,一个逐步诉求司法证明程序公正和过程公正的进程。证据裁判原则所体现的基本理性表现为证据和证明对象之间的一种经验联系,这种经验的理性联系既存在于经验法则之中,也存在于对证据和证明对象的当下经验之中。事实认定是当下经验的证据、证明对象和经验法则相互调适的过程,是作为经验法则的历史经验和作为对证据具体认识的当下经验相互结合的过程,是经验过程和经验结果的统一。在证据规则建设方面我们面临许多问题,是否需要证据规则,需要什么样的证据规则,怎样具体建设我国的证据规则体系,逻辑(法则)和经验(法则)、其他国家的实践,各自为我们提供了有益的启示。法官自由裁量权是司法过程精密化的重要保障,但法官自由裁量权同时需要逻辑法则和经验法则的双重支持与制约。逻辑法则(规则化)对刑事司法证明中法官自由裁量权的支持和制约表现在案件争议事实的认定、证据运作程序、法律的选择和解释、罪名和刑罚的确定、裁判的说理等具体过程中。就案件争议事实认定而言,逻辑化、规则化为法官运用自由裁量权认定案件争议事实提供了基本的逻辑前提,提供了具有证据能力的证据,逻辑化的有关证据证明力的规则对法官的自由裁量构成了约束,有关事实逻辑推论方向的法律规则对法官的自由裁量产生影响,逻辑形式和逻辑规则(规律)为司法证明提供了技术工具支持。法官自由裁量权还要受到经验和经验法则的制约,作为历史经验的经验法则为人们认识具体证明对象提供了基本的认识背景,对证据和证明对象的当下经验是法官进行自由裁量的现实基础,经验法则和当下经验互动。在法官进行自由裁量时还可能会遭遇法官个体的经验、经验法则和整体的社会政策等价值的冲突,如果法律规则没有对这些冲突的平衡提供具体的规则,那么法官有义务在自由裁量中对相互冲突的认识价值和社会价值进行综合考量,从而作出更加合理的裁决。推定是根据法律规定,在基础事实被确定为真(或不需要基础事实)的条件下,确定推定事实为真的法律规则。推定的设定和适用中,逻辑(法则)和经验法则发挥了重要功能。推定建立在逻辑的推论形式之上,对推论所依据的经验法则的置信度进行了人为的改变。利用逻辑标准对推定进行重新厘定,将事实推定排除在推定之外,进一步将推定分为不可反驳推定和可反驳推定。推定的合理性有逻辑法则和经验法则的支持,但同时又具有“人定”的性质和特点。推定既具有便利证明、提高证明效率的正面价值,也潜含一些负面价值。在刑事诉讼中有罪推定的趋势既对法官的自由心证构成局部侵蚀,也对保障被告人基本权利的无罪推定原则构成局部侵蚀。逻辑法则和经验法则为辨证分析、认识推定的功能、作用机制提供了基本的背景知识和具体的分析工具。概括地说,逻辑(法则)和经验(法则)潜藏于自由心证原则和证据裁判原则背后,为司法证明过程提供了形式理性和实质理性的双重支持。更多还原

【Abstract】 The structure of judicial proof, which provides a structure for an analysis of principles of logic and laws of general experience, is a more stable structural relationship that is established in the activity of confliction /persuasion and verdict, oriented to the fact-in-issue, between parties and judges. The space of judicial proof should be confined in the process of trial or pre-trial in which parties and judges are all on the scene. The process of judicial proof can be divided into two phases---- fact-finding and its justification. We can specify these two phases from two different viewpoints: to parties, it’s an activity of claim and persuasion; to judges, it’s a series of mental actions from knowledge, convinction, and judgment to expression. The structure of debate that keeps a close relationship with the structure of litigation and the structure of judicial proof provides a tool for the analysis of principles of logic and laws of general experience.In this essay, the terminology logic (or principles of logic) is used in its broadest meaning, as a combination of a process and its effect. It contains not only the forms of reasoning, the rules of reasoning and the principles of reasoning but the process (or tendency) of formalization itself. Under this definition, codification and strict rule-oriented mode in justice can be taken as sign of logic. In its totality, principles of logic keep a one-to-one relationship respectively with the fundamental elements of judicial proof: the articulation of fact-in-issue to the law of identity, the exclusion of contradictory evidence to the law of no-contradictory, the burden of proof to the law of excluded middle, and the standard of proof to the law of sufficient reason. In its parties, principles of logic provide an analysis method for some concrete questions such as the relevancy of evidence, the division of direct evidence and indirect evidence, the inference relationship between probans and probandum. In summary, logic is a useful tool for us to understand the reasonable process of judicial proof and it provides a method of analysis.Similarly, in this essay, the terminology experience (or laws of general experience) means a combination of a process and its effect. Some division of experience type can be made. Among these experience type, historical experience (the opposite of present experience) and general experience (the opposite of special experience) are most important ones. Activities of legislation and enforcement of the law involve in experience. Traditionally we have a culture of emphasis on experience but also confront some puzzle questions at present. In the concrete process of judicial proof, we should focus on the relationship of historical experience and experience-at-present. Laws of general experience (or common sense) are some common sense (general knowledge) or principles which are induced from a character or a relationship of the matter (matters) by our experience. In judicial inference, law of general experience constitutes a major premise of a syllogism and it takes an active role. Laws of experience and judges’experience-at- present balances each other and judges should attain their knowledge of fact-in-issue from the combination of laws of experience and their experience-at-present. The theory and technology of laws general experience, provided by both continent scholars and common law scholars, make it convenient for us to understand and use it. Laws of general experience and judge’s experience-at-present warrant the conclusion of judicial proof.The principles (rules) of evidence keep a close relation with principles of logic and laws of general experience. The principle of free valuation of evidence which establishes rational base for the valuation system of evidence needs both support and limitation and logic principles take an important role in this course; Similarly, the course of free valuation of evidence not only rely on but also is confined by course of experience and laws of general experience. The principle of verdict on evidence involves with the logical course and logic principles because the course of establishment of evidence system, from trial by ordeal to so-called“legal proof”, from so-called“legal proof”to the system of free valuation of evidence, is also a course of logic. Logic provides a basic logic structure and a formal method for judicial proof. The fundamental rationality presented by the principle of verdict on evidence exists in the experience relationship of evidence and fact-in-issue (probandum). It’s a course in which laws of general experience and experience-at-present about evidence and fact-in-issue check, balance, combine each other. When we consider of establishment of our country’s system of evidence rules, we are confronted some questions. For example, whether or not it’s necessary to establish system of evidence rule in our country, what a system of evidence rule we need, and how to construct this system, and so on. However, the study of principles of logic and laws of general experience can help us making a choice, and so does the practice of other countries.Judge’s discretion is a guarantee of refined justice and it also needs support and limitation which come from principles of logic and laws of general experience. Principles of logic take on a vital role in concrete course of justice. Take the course of fact-finding as an example, principles of logic and rules of evidence provide necessary premise of logic and provide competent evidence. Some rules of valuation weight of evidence constitute necessary limitation and some rules of orientation of inference also influence the use of judges’discretion. On the other hand, judges’discretion also involves with experience and laws of general experience. Laws of general experience (as a historical experience) and experience-at-present of evidence provide a background for judge’s knowledge of fact-in-issue. In this course, laws of general experience and experience-at-present of evidence check and balance each other. However, in the course of judge’s discretion, some conflicts may occur among individual experience of judges, laws of general experience and social polices as its totality. If there is no concrete rules which reconcile these conflicts in codes, judges are obliged to consider the conflicts of these values in their discretion so that judges can make a more reasonable decision.A presumption, in its legal meaning, is a legal rule. A presumption may be defined to be an inference required by a rule of law drawn as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other established basic fact. In the course of establishment and usage of presumptions, logic (principles) and laws of general experience take a key role. A presumption bases on the logic form of inference and makes at some extent artificial enforcement on the reliability of laws of general experience. According to standard of logic, we can divide presumptions into two parties: reputable presumption and irrefutable presumption, excluding factual inference from presumptions. A presumption gets its guarantee from logic and law of general experience; however it has some character of man-regulated. Although a presumption has a lot of positive values such as convenience of judicial proof, enhancement of judicial efficiency, it shares some negative values yet. In criminal process, a presumption may erode judge’s free valuation of evidence partly and may erode the presumption of innocence partly that is a fundmental principle of protection of defendant in criminal process. Logic (principles) and laws of general experience provide a basic background and a concrete tool for our analysis of presumption.In summary, logic (principles) and laws of general experience exist in the principle of free valuation of evidence and the principle of verdict on evidence. They give a guarantee of rationality of form and materiality.更多还原