【作者】 郑玉；

【导师】 郑成良；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法学理论， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 自由裁量问题是法哲学领域一个经久不衰的话题，它到底是法治的敌人还是法治的朋友一直是争论的焦点。法官进行自由裁量是法律适用的重要环节。目前中国在进行审判制度的改革，如何对待法官的自由裁量权是一个不容回避并且极具理论意义和现实意义的问题。这一问题的研究在西方一致受到司法界和学术界的极大重视，但在我国，尽管近年来有不少文章的触角已经伸向这里，但是对此作较为系统深入论述的少之又少。为此，本文试就这一重要课题做初步研习，以期能抛砖引玉，求得各界人士广泛关注并做出深入探讨。本文根据理论研究的需要，将文章划分为前言、正文（分三个部分）、结束语。前言部分，文章提出自由裁量权与法治的历史纠葛，拟从这里引出话题，自由裁量在现实生活中广泛存在，是一个制度事实。自由裁量权并不像以往人们认识的那样只是大量存在于行政执法当中，实际上，它在法律适用的一切领域以及任何法制体系中都是普遍存在的。我国司法领域里也不例外，自由裁量权大量、普遍地存在于审判活动和检察活动中，本文主要考察存在于审判活动中的法官自由裁量权。正文第一部分，法官自由裁量权本体论。文章试图分析和澄清有关法官自由裁量权的概念、存在基础和制度功能。通过考察中外许多学者对法官自由裁量（权）的定义或描述，我们可以发现以下共识：法官自由裁量权是有限的裁量权；是法官自由选择、自主判断的权力；价值目标是公正，行使标准是合理，作为司法权的一项，最终是为了实现司法正义。我们认为，法官自由裁量权是法官在法律法规规定的原则和范围内自由选择的权力，也是法官根据知识结构、道德习俗、个案的特殊性，充分发挥主观能动性的权力。法律规则本身的局限性是法官自由裁量权的存在基础。法官自由裁量权作为一项制度事实，它的功能可以概括为有助于克服法律的局限性、促进定分止争、促进法律发展、沟通普遍正义与个体正义。正文第二部分，法官自由裁量权运行论。本文系统论述了法官自由裁量权运行过程中的有关问题。法官的自由裁量权具有双重的运行结构，既存在于客观认知阶段也存在于法律论证阶段，即法官认定事实和适用法律阶段。认定事实时证据调查阶段和证据分析认定阶段法官都不可避免自由裁量；适用法律时法官有必要运用自由裁量权去解释法律，甚至创造法律。本文重点探讨了法官行使自由裁量权应遵循合理性的原则。合理性原则要求法官应当适当考虑以下因素：法定意图、情理、法的原则、政策、社会公平正义的价值观。由于法官的个人素质和司法环境的影响，法官在是否行使自由裁量权和如何行使自由裁量权的过程中难免有失范行为，本文对此作了详细陈述和分析。为了保障法官能够合理行使自由裁量权，我们认为，应当从司法领域内部和外部共同努力。内部保障主要指的是法官个人素质的全面提高和司法程序的合理化。关于外部保障本文从以下方面展开论述：宪政与司法独立；社会文化环境；法学研究和教学。作者指出保障法官合理正当行使自由裁量权的各要素之间并非独立作用，只有彼此互动产生合力方能真正发挥作用。第三部分，中国法官自由裁量权的实践现状。文章结合中国现实论述法官自由裁量权的现实困境并试图做出制度探索。这是文章的重心部分，也是作者期待呈现理论创新之处。我国由于法律传统和处于社会转型时期的现实因素，客观的存在着许多阻碍法官在司法活动中合理裁量的问题，如法官专业素质不高、司法程序不够合理、缺乏行使自由裁量权的指导原则、法制不够完善等等。文中归纳为：主体失位、程序错位、生态环境缺位。要解决这些问题，重中之重在于在加快法官职业化进程，包括强化法官职业技能、强化法官职业品质以及强化法官职业制度保障。为了把自由裁量权限制在一定的框架内，避免无限裁量的出现，我们应在法系融合的背景下讨论立法完善问题，尽快完善现行法并重视判例在我国的作用。为了对法官的自由裁量权有效监督，我们应增强司法程序的透明度，本文重点探讨了加强裁判文书说理性和改革证据规则问题。结语部分指出本文由于作者能力、研究时间和掌握资料所限，对于法官自由裁量权这一博大精深的理论问题只是作出了粗浅的探讨，观点可能偏狭，内容难免疏漏，欢迎大家批评指正。更多还原

【Abstract】 It long has been a debatable topic that whether judicial discretion is the friend or foe of jurisdiction. Discretion of judgers is an indispensable segment of the application of laws. Now the reform of judicial system is undergoing in China, therefore how to deal with judicial discretion is a question with great theoretic and practical significance, which should not be evaded. Research on the problem attracts great attention from both judicial and academic circles in the western countries, nevertheless, in our country, the deep and systematic critique is seldom found, despite that there have been some articles setting foot in this field. Therefore, expecting the extensive attention and deep discussion from all walks of life, the author tries to conduct a tentative research on the important subject, which may bring about more valuable opinions from others. With regard of the need of theoretic research, the article is composed of preface, text (including three sections) and conclusion. In the preface, the article concerns the conflict between judicial discretion and rule of law, which initiates the topic that judicial discretion, a system in reality, exists extensively in life. Judicial discretion, unlike the past imagination, does not only exist largely in the administrative jurisdiction, but also, in fact, in all fields of law application and any judicial system. Jurisdiction in our country is not an exception, in which discretion can be frequently found in trail and procuratorate. The article mainly treats the judicial discretion in trial.The first part of the article is ontology of judicial discretion. It tries to edify the concept, basis and mechanism of judicial discretion. Reviewing the concept of judicial discretion, we can find the common sense hold by the Chinese and overseas scholars: judicial discretion is limited, and it is judges’ power of free choice and independent judgment; the aim of it is justice and the criterion of it is rationality. As a power of jurisdiction, it is designed to reach the end of procedural justice. Our point of view is that judicial discretion is the power, which judges freely choose on the principles of laws, and also fully exercise with subjective flexibility in the light of knowledge, moral and particularity of cases. The limitation of laws is the basis of judicial discretion. The functions of judicial discretion, as a reality of system, can be concluded as overcoming the limitation of laws, settling legal disputes, promoting the development of legislation, and striking the balance between general justice and individual justice.The second part of the article is about operation of judicial discretion. The article systematically reviews the parallel structure of the operation of judicial discretion, which lies in both phases of objective cognition and legitimate justification, i.e. validation of the facts and application of laws. It is inevitable that judges use discretion when they validate facts, investigate evidences and analyze evidences; when apply laws, they interpret and even make laws. The article lays emphasis on the principle of rationality, with which judicial discretion must be in accordance. Judges are required to consider following factors: legislation purposes, reasons, principles, policies, and social justice. Affected by the individual quality and juristic environment, judges cannot avoid abusing the power, when they determine whether and how to use their discretion. The article comprehensively illuminates and analyzes the problem. To ensure the proper judicial discretion, our viewpoint is that the joint efforts should be made both from internal and external of jurisdiction. The internal ensurence mainly comes from the full improvement of judge’s quality and the rationalization of judicial procedural. The article reviews the external ensurence in following aspects: constitutional government and independent jurisdiction, social culture environment, and juristic research and education. The author points out that all factors, which do not work independently, can更多还原