【作者】 雷小政；

【导师】 宋英辉；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 当代法学方法论,通过法律论证理论、法律“可诉性”理论、法学方法论部门法化等,在内在资源、外在保障和沟通渠道等方面实现了内在超越。刑事诉讼法学方法论,以法学方法论和刑事诉讼法特性为基础,研究刑事诉讼中的法律应用方法和法学研究方法。前者主要包括法律发现、法律解释、法律推理、价值权衡、漏洞补充和法律论证;后者在不同历史时期、不同法学理论体系中有所差异。法律方法和法学方法在司法过程中相互影响、互相促进。在刑事法律倾向一体化的语境下,刑事诉讼法学方法论普遍受到程序法定主义、罪刑法定主义、证据裁判主义等基本法制原则的规制。全文由论纲(第一章)、正文七章、每章后附结语与研究展望组合而成。第二章:刑事诉讼法律发现方法论。刑事诉讼法律发现,就是裁判者在刑事诉讼过程中依据一定的方法在法律渊源中寻找到个案的裁判规范。在司法实践中,来自法外规范、良性违法规范、潜规则、习惯性规范、政策性规范、考核指标等“非正式法源”的竞争压力表明,刑事诉讼法制的统一性、权威性亟待提高。本文建议借鉴两大法系刑事诉讼法律发现模式,构建中国刑事诉讼法“可诉性”机制。在一定意义上,唯有如此努力,才能发现“真正的法律”。第三章:刑事诉讼法律解释方法论。刑事诉讼法律解释,就是裁判者针对法律适用中出现的相关疑义和歧义,加以阐释和说明,以实现法律规范具体化、案件事实一般化的活动。在当前“多元一级法律解释体制”下,抽象性、普遍性的司法解释存在“形式越权”,“内容冲突”、“方法粗糙”等问题。本文建议在制度上承认办案人员具体释法权,同时,最高立法机关可回收制定抽象性、规范性解释的权力,并在实际解释中遵循“严格解释原则”、“有利于被追诉人原则”、“动态审查原则”等。第四章:刑事诉讼法律推理方法论。刑事诉讼法律推理,就是裁判者依据一定方法将案件事实构成要件与刑事诉讼行为条款实现合致的过程。由于中国刑事诉讼裁判规范的不确定性,加上裁判者解释时职权性浓厚,往往忽视“复合型刑事诉讼行为”中的推理结构。本文建议完善“复合型刑事诉讼行为”中具有初步性、程序性的“罪刑推理”、“证据推理”、“程序推理”、“效果判断”等,防止出现任意、不当,甚至违法情形,同时促进推理过程的精密和规范。第五章:刑事诉讼价值权衡方法论。刑事诉讼价值权衡,就是由裁判者依据一定程序和方法对冲突的利益确定其轻重而进行的衡量与选择活动。中国刑事诉讼的现代化之路,即是一部价值权衡的曲折史。要克服中国刑事诉讼价值权衡中的国家—被追诉人的“主体二元性”、“秩序本位性”,需调整其价值权衡基准,拓展其利益形态,贯彻刑事诉讼“底限正义观”;要克服中国刑事诉讼价值权衡中的过程封闭性、方法保守性。在方法论层面,本文建议吸纳“综合式利益衡平模式”,融合“静态位阶方法”和“动态衡平方法”等;同时,作为保障,需要克服职业化、部门化的偏狭心态,完善刑事诉讼法立法艺术,培植刑事诉讼“法权感”,力求利益均衡化、最大化。第六章:刑事诉讼漏洞补充方法论。刑事诉讼漏洞补充,就是及时填补违反计划之不圆满状态的法律漏洞。一旦漏洞补充任意、不当、甚至违法,对公民实质伤害巨大,甚至隐蕴“人权危机”。“类推适用”、“目的性限缩”、“目的性扩张”、“创造性补充”等漏洞补充方法都可在一定条件下运用于刑事诉讼中。但是,这需要确立“有限补充原则”、“有利于被追诉人原则”、“正当程序原则”等加以规制。从长远看,可借鉴英美判例制度构建中国刑事诉讼判例制度,用以填补刑事诉讼中的法律漏洞。第七章:刑事诉讼法律论证方法论。刑事诉讼法律论证,就是论证刑事诉讼行为中所依据的刑事诉讼法裁判规范的正当性,以及认定程序性事实的正当性。在“简单司法三段论”下,中国现行法律论证存在概括性、简单化、程式化、粗糙化等问题。相形之下,英美法系的“对话证明模式”和大陆法系的“涵摄证明模式”,都各有长短。针对中国刑事诉讼法律论证的走向,可构建“综合性动态论证模式”:不仅将法律论证及其裁判文书说理从审判程序推及审判前程序,而且坚持如下正当性标准——“逻辑性规则”、“可接受性规则”和“融贯性规则”等。第八章:刑事诉讼法学方法的反思与走向。与中国古代律学式微相比,西方法学方法体系发展日渐成熟。以法学方法论为依托,西方法学方法体系具有客观性、多元性、交叉性、功能性、适时性等特征。中国刑事诉讼法法学方法要系统性转型,建议以解释力与践行力为标准,促进法学方法科学化;整合传统方法,促进法学方法多元化;探索司法定向下的法学方法,积极借鉴西方自然法学、分析法学、社会法学等法学流派的研究方法;整合本土资源,完善实证研究方法。总之,走向部门法化的法学方法论,以刑事诉讼法学方法论为见证,逐步显现其本质属性——法学方法论是关于人的方法论,同时是一门具体的学问,是一个框架性的范畴。要实现刑事诉讼法律方法的实质法治,以及刑事诉讼法学方法的良性转型,只有在固有法与移植法、国家法与民间法等多元法律的“互动”与“互惠”中,在法学家、法律实践者和国家机构等多元主体之间的“商谈”和“沟通”中,才有可能“交往”地达成。更多还原

【Abstract】 The contemporary methodology of jurisprudence, with the support of legal argument theory, litigable nature theory, methodology of jurisprudence concerning department law, ect., has realized its internal transcendence both at the internal resources level and the outside communication level. Based on the Characteristics of methodology of jurisprudence and Criminal litigation, the Criminal Procedure Study Methodology focuses on the methodology of law application and the methodology of legal research. The former includes legal finding, legal explanations, legal reasoning, value appraisement, gap filling and legal argument; the latter varies in different the eras and legal theoretical systems. Legal methods and jurisprudence methods can interact and promote mutually. In the context of unification of criminal laws, all kinds of methodology of jurisprudence are guided by the doctrine of procedure legality, statutory principle of crime and penalty and the principle of evidence judgment.This dissertation includes eight sections.SectionⅠis an outline.SectionⅡwill involve the legal finding in criminal litigation, which is the process of the fact finder finding the decision norms in the legal sources for the specific case according to certain methods. In judicial practice, the pressures from rules outside the law, benign breaching of regulations, potential rules, customary norms, policies and check indexes show that the unification and authority of criminal procedure law remains to be improved. I suggest that we learn from the west and construct a litigable regime with Chinese Characteristics and only through this regime that we can achieve the goal of real finding of law.SectionⅢis mainly about legal explanations of criminal procedure, which is the activity of the fact finder clarifying and demonstrating the ambiguity of law application, and thereby we can realize the embodiment of legal rules and the generalization of the facts in specific case. In the context of current legal explanation system, the abstract and general legal explanation suffers from ultra vires, confliction of contents and roughness of methods. I argue that we should accept the judge with the authority of legal explanation and at the same time the Supreme Legislature could take back the authority of making abstract and normative legal explanations. And also we should follow the principle of " strict explanation ", principle of beneficial to the accused " and " principle of dynamicreviewSectionⅣwill analyze the legal reasoning in criminal litigation, which is the process of the fact finder matching main issues of the case with the statutes of criminal procedure law. Because of the uncertainty of judgment rule in CPL (Criminal Procedure Law) and the inquisitorial tradition, the fact finder would often ignore the reasoning structure in "the complex criminal litigations". I suggest that we should improve the preliminary and procedural "crime and punishment reasoning","legal reasoning", "evidence reasoning", "effects evaluation", and at the same time prevent the breach of law hoping to promote the precision and normalization of reasoning. SectionⅤwill talk about value evaluation which is the process in which the fact finders weigh the conflict of interests and make the choices in accordance with certain procedures and methods. The track of modernization of CPL undergoes a twisted history of value evaluation. We should avoid the traditional "subject duality" (the state and the accused)and "order priority"and try to adjust the standards of value evaluation, vary the benefit distributions; at the same time we should eliminate the closeness and conservativeness in CPL and absorb "the comprehensive interests balance pattern", "stable value status" and "dynamic balance methods". To sum up, we should avoid the narrow point of view and try to cultivate a legislation art and establish the legal authority to optimize the benefit balance.SectionⅥwill discuss the gap filling which is trying to fill the gap of the law timely, when the stipulation proved unsatisfactory. If the gap filling process is at will, improper and even illegal, there it would do substantially harm to the citizens and even invoke the "human rights crisis". Though "analogy", "limitation for purpose", "expansion for purpose" and "creative explanation" can be used as gap filling measures in criminal litigation , we have to regulate the above unreasonable process through the principle of "limited gap filling" , "principle of beneficial to the accused" and "due process principle". In the long run, we can transplant the Stare Decisis in common law for gap filling.SectionⅦwill analyze the legal argument in criminal litigation which argues the legitimacy of procedural facts and regulation used in criminal litigation. By "the simplified judicial syllogism ",the current legal argument seems too general, simple, formalized and rough. At the comparative view , "the dialogue pattern" in common law system and "the subsumtion proof pattern" in continental law system both have its own merits. The trend of Chinese legal argument is to construct a "comprehensively dynamic argument pattern" and stick to the legitimacy standard? ? coincidence with "logic rules", "acception rules" and "coherence rules".SectionⅧwill end with reflection and prediction. Compared with the weakness of the methodology of the ancient law of China, the western methodology of jurisprudence has already completed its permeation process now because of its objectivity, multi-dimensions, inter-discipline, functional oriented and timeliness. Methodology of jurisprudence in CPL study has to promote its scientization and multi-dimension, absorb the essence of multi-discipline such as natural jurisprudence, analytical jurisprudence and social jurisprudence, and take its way to the localization by the empirical reseach methods.To sum up, the methodology of jurisprudence is a methodology about human being and at the same time, it is a concrete knowledge and a frame category .The essence of criminal litigation is the rule of law and the benign transform of methodology of jurisprudence. Only through the interaction between the local law and transplanted law , and between the state’s law and the civil law ,can we realize the communication between the jurists, legal practitioners and the state organs.更多还原