论中国古代判词中的修辞论证

古代中国，判官们在撰写判词时喜欢以文学化的语言叙事和修饰。这是一种修辞论证方式，目的是要说服当事人、说服听众，实现情理法的统一。文学化的修辞论证是古代中国人司法智慧的展示，可以用最低的社会成本和司法成本达到最大的社会效益，在一定程度上达到了“定纷止争”的目的。     

陪审团审理微观制衡机制考察——一个以美国为对象的分析实证视角

“陪审团决定事实问题、法官决定法律问题”的常识观点虽揭示出陪审团审理的基本框架,却过于简单,且与实际不完全相符。陪审团审理还存在一种微观的制衡机制,即法官可以通过运用证据规则、对陪审团作出指示、指定裁决形式,以及批准作为法律事项的判决的动议和重新审理动议等方式制约陪审团的事实认定;陪审团则可以在定罪、量刑和裁定民事赔偿额度等方面影响法官对法律问题的决定。这种微观制衡机制既保障了陪审团审理中的事实认定,又维护了法律适用的正当性。     

人民陪审制的改革与完善——谈“混合制”人民陪审模式的建立

人民陪审制在我国是舶来品,其建立的基本理念主要有两个方面:一是实现人民参与国家政权的管理和司法民主;一是通过人民陪审员的参与,实现准确认定案件事实、适用法律的目的。我国目前人民陪审制的实际运行与以上两个理念存在一定的冲突,无法实现人民陪审制的功能。在审判方式改革日益深入的当今时代,英美国家的陪审制对人民陪审制的完善具有一定的借鉴意义。为此,我主张我国人民陪审制的改革在立足人民陪审员对法律适用具有一定的发言权的基础上,借鉴英美陪审制的合理因素,建立混合式的人民陪审制。     

裁判请求权保障与法院审判人员的优化配置

在实行法官员额制改革过程中,必须一并考虑法院审判人员的分类管理和优化配置问题。在民事诉讼中,为保障公民的裁判请求权,对于民事纠纷案件的审理,必须配置入额法官;对于非讼案件的审理、诉前或审前的法院调解以及立案登记等程序事项的处理应交由司法实务官进行,从而让法官专注于民事纠纷案件的审判,以更好地落实公民的裁判请求权保障之宪法理念。司法事务官不同于助理审判员,其不能审理所有的民事案件;司法事务官也不同于法官助理,司法事务官不是法官的助手,其可以依法独立行使职权。司法事务官不是宪法意义上的处理民事纠纷的法官,司法事务官不必进入法官员额。     

同案同判下司法技术与情理的平衡

同案同判旨在通过指导案例和类案检索制度促进法律统一适用,从而树立司法公信力。同案同判表示着司法技术化趋势,而司法技术化是中国近代以来愈加推崇的形式理性及其所引领的市场经济、科技发展的必然结果。同案同判一方面保证了法律的确定性与司法的形式正义,另一方面却因法律适用过程中的技术化操作牺牲了部分个案的实质正义。既然同案同判的最终目的是向社会树立司法公正价值,那么就必须兼顾社会公正观。当代社会的主流公正观是在法治前提下追求情理法兼容。这是法律儒家化的结果,符合中华文明的和谐平衡观,是传统司法的首要原则。司法技术化与传统情理法的冲突,深层次是中西文化、传统与现代的冲突。近代以来,中国对技术过度迷信,导致司法公正与民众公正观的间隙扩大。这需以情理法兼容的传统予以调和,使司法不仅仅是科学的法律知识与程序之学,更是兼顾伦理观的司法技艺。司法技术只能作为解决当前司法适用不统一的过渡与辅助手段,长远来看,需通过拓展法官的综合知识与培育伦理素质以正确适用、阐释法律。     

法官能动性与公正再论

法院的判决宣示着法的精神,引导着民众的行为.诉诸于法院各种诉讼请求,即是将各种矛盾呈现在法官面前.法官必须判断何种诉求为正当,只有当案件事实符合法律规范的构成要件,且案件事实中蕴涵的法律价值和所适用的法律规范的价值取向相一致时,才可以依据该法律规范对案件事实作出判决.法官在运用国家的制定法以回应民众的要求时,将一些明显不当的有违民意的规定加以过滤,能动地对制定法加以填充修正.刘荣军教授亦言:"处于社会与国家立法机关之间的司法,应当以并不完整的法律作为基本的支撑,寻找制定法之外的法源,将社会的正义、公平的观念和价值导入司法程序之中,创造出能够解压、还原法律本意的规则,以作为裁判的依据."     

为判例制度正名——关于构建我国判例制度的思考

我国当前并无明确的判例制度,但实际上存在着＂近似判例制度＂,如案件请示批复制度是有实无名的判例制度,案例选编公告制度是心照不宣的判例制度,案例指导制度是欲言又止的判例制度,这些制度有诸多不足。随着社会的发展和司法实践的需要,我国应当建立判例制度。建立判例制度有利于维护法律的稳定性,树立法律的权威;有利于矫正我国的近似判例制度,树立司法的权威;有利于提高我国个案审判和判决书的质量,树立法官的威望。我国构建判例制度的基本思路应当是,使判例制度与法律方法相结合,使判例制度与司法解释制度相结合。我国应当构建一个由最高人民法院和审案的人民法院共同制作判例、由最高人民法院发布判例的判例制度,这是构建我国判例制度的关键。     

Pre-verdict Judicial Fact-finding in Criminal Trials with Juries

In criminal trials with a jury, judges have many opportunitiesto engage in adjudicative fact-finding before the jury retires.English law has no conceptual framework for examining this judicialfact-finding which encompasses two categories of collateralfact (preliminary and underlying fact) and foreign law. A thirdcategory of collateral fact (conditional fact) is decided bythe jury. The article examines the nature of judicial fact-findingand the history and rationale for this allocation of fact-findingresponsibility between judge and jury.     

国人对民决团在英美法庭中的功能的误解

民决团仅仅负责事实审,决定事实问题;法官则负责法律审,决定法律问题。这个认识的错误在于：普通法中没有“事实审”、“法律审”的术语,这是国人杜撰出来的。普通法事实发展出来法律,法律是事实的积累。民决团事实上既决定法律又决定事实。它在美国,具有最高权力,大于总统、国会和最高法庭。另外民决团在美国7个州还决定量刑,在有死刑的州,还决定死刑。事实与法律的区分和混合,有助于法官将复杂问题交给民决团决定并在上诉中捍卫民决团的最高权力;也有助于法官对法律问题下命令、进行违宪性审查。总之,理解民决团的最高权力,是理解普通法的关键。     

论“混合制”陪审模式的建立

人民陪审制在我国是舶来品,其建立的基本理念主要有两个方面:一是实现人民参与国家政权的管理和司法民主;一是通过人民陪审员的参与,实现准确认定案件事实、适用法律的目的。我国目前人民陪审制的实际运行与以上两个理念冲突,无法实现人民陪审制的功能。在审判方式改革日益深入的当今时代,英美国家的陪审制对我国人民陪审制的完善具有一定的借鉴意义。为此,我国的人民陪审制改革应在立足人民陪审员对法律适用具有一定的发言权的基础上,借鉴英美陪审制的合理因素,建立我国混合式的人民陪审制。     

寻求一种温和的司法能动主义——论疑难案件中法官的司法哲学

在面对疑难案件时,法官的司法哲学是案件的最终裁决者。信奉司法能动主义的法官倾向于通过创造性司法来回应社会需求,而司法消极主义则将自己定位为立法者的代理人,反对通过司法途径来解决重大社会问题。在当下的中国法治建设中,基于社会转型的现实,法官在审理疑难案件时应当秉持一种温和的能动主义的司法理念,通过创造性司法来回应社会变迁,实现社会正义。     

论民事虚假诉讼行为的刑事可罚性及其立法完善——以一个案件分析为例

近年来,民事诉讼领域虚假诉讼现象逐渐引起了法律界的关注。虚假诉讼行为人通过编造虚假民事法律关系、伪造证据骗取法院判决,严重扰乱了人民法院正常的审判秩序,极大地损害了司法权威。为有效预防和规制民事虚假诉讼行为,应该及时修改现行《刑法》,对该行为规定专门的罪名。     

Transplanting Jury Trials in South Korean Legal Soils: Comparative Analysis with Jury Trials in the United States

Jury trials, known as common-law institution centering on the UK and the USA, for the first time in Korean adjudicatory history, have been transplanted into Korean legal soils under cultural and political climate with legal roots of the “Civil Participation in Criminal Trial Act (CPCTA) of 2007” since 2008. This research examines legal and operational issues of jury trials through comparative analysis between the United States and South Korea. Several legal characteristics of 2013 revision bill of CPCTA, proposed by the Committee of Civil Participation in the Judiciary (CCPJ), are to be pointed out: so-called “civil participation” approach, de facto binding power of jury verdict and sentencing, and a stricter standard for a jury verdict or decision (3/4 majority). Statistical results from planting jury trials in both American and Korean legal system proved to be very similar. Meanwhile, a 2013 revision bill has to overcome several practical and legal obstacles, such as low usage of jury trials, the high rate of judicial dismissal of defendants’ petitions, and violation of Article 27 of the Korean Constitution. Under the current legislative scheme, judges in Korean courts need to operate jury trials in such a careful and respectful way that the revision may neglect neither a defendant’s right to jury trial nor jury’s verdict. Legal scholars, experts, and legislators with interests in implementing jury trials in Korea should research on ways to expand the system to other judicial procedures such as juvenile, civil, family, and administrative cases.     

Judicial Greatness and the Duties of a Judge

This paper addresses the phenomenon of judicial greatness by developing a general concept of greatness and applying it to law. Under the view offered in the paper, greatness (in general, and also in law) is connected to theoretical or methodological diversification. When applied to adjudication, this means that great judges are revered because they successfully make a prima facie case for their novel adjudicative methods. This is not a judicial duty but rather a voluntary (and in some circumstances, morally supererogatory) project. However, once a judge succeeds in making such a prima facie case, he is exempt (to a certain degree) from other judicial duties (including the duty to follow the law). This thesis challenges many theories of judicial duty, which do not allow normative room for supererogatory actions in law. The paper demonstrates these claims by discussing two paradigmatic great judges – Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Holmes.     

A Third Verdict Option: Exploring the Impact of the Not Proven Verdict on Mock Juror Decision Making

In most adversarial systems, jurors in criminal cases consider the binary verdict alternatives of "Guilty" and "Not guilty." However, in some circumstances and jurisdictions, a third verdict option is available: Not Proven. The Not Proven verdict essentially reflects the view that the defendant is indeed culpable, but that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like a Not Guilty verdict, the Not Proven verdict results in an acquittal. The main aim of the two studies reported here was to determine how, and under what circumstances, jurors opt to use the Not Proven verdict across different case types and when the strength of the evidence varies. In both studies, jurors were more likely to choose a Not Proven verdict over a Not Guilty verdict when the alternative was available. When evidence against the defendant was only moderately strong and a Not Proven verdict option was available (Study 2), there was also a significant reduction in the conviction rate. Results also showed that understanding of the Not Proven verdict was poor, highlighting inadequacies in the nature of judicial instructions relating to this verdict.     

司法过程中的法律发现

司法过程中的法律发现是法学方法论的重要组成部分，它研究的是法官面对个案理解、解释、适用法律的过程。在这一过程中，法官应表达对法律的忠诚并根据案件事实衡平个别正义。法官之所以在司法过程中发现法律，乃是因为法律适用就是法律解释，没有法官对法律和事实的理解，就不可能有法律适用。依照法治原则，发现法律首先应从法律正式法源中去寻找，只有当正式法源中没有明确标准或虽有标准但该标准与个案正义严重背离时，才在非正式法源中寻找可以接受的答案。     

Korean citizen participation in criminal trials: The present situation and problems

As citizen participation in criminal trials was first introduced in 2008, it is advisable to keep the present form of an all-citizen jury system rather than introduce or adopt aspects of the Continental mixed tribunal system because the former system makes the best use of the meaning of Article 1 of the Act of Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in Korea. Though previously professional judges participated in the deliberation process, under the current system, the new procedure should allow only jurors to engage in deliberations and render verdicts, with sentencing still left to professional judges. The new law should also eliminate a consent agreement required for a defendant in jury trial, thereby making jury trial mandatory for certain classes of heinous crimes like murder or even political crimes; juvenile cases, however, may still be excluded from jury trial. In addition, the exclusion right of the court should also be recognized, but the current comprehensive rule (Article 9 (1) (3)) should be eliminated. It is necessary for the jury verdict to have legal binding force such that the prosecutor cannot appeal the acquittal if the verdict was decided unanimously. Lastly, as for the use of victim participation programs, it is enough to simply allow victims to make statements as witness. This year, on March 6, 2013, the revised system of civil participation in criminal trials has been ready based on the evaluation of the current system by the Committee on Civil Judicial Participation, which was comprised of members from the judiciary, the academia, and civil organizations. The new amendment will be submitted to the National Assembly within this year.     

Integration information in the judicial field: adding versus averaging models

Abstract

In the course of a trial, the main task that every judge or juror has to face concerns the evaluation of various pieces of evidence from a variety of different sources, with the aim of integrating such data into a single, final verdict. Algebraic models have tried to explain and predict decisional paths by identifying formal, mathematical combinatory rules. The aim of the present research was to test two main integration information models, namely adding and averaging, when combining items of judicial evidence. In the first study, we investigated how the probability of guilt varied as a function of the value of the pieces of evidence and information presented, in legal and not legal professional samples. In the second study, we analysed combinatory rules with more complex and realistic experimental material. Results indicated that participants summed the values of pieces of evidence in a linear fashion when they had to provide estimates of guilt. We found evidence of an adding rule among both legal and not legal professionals as well as in simple and more complex judicial cases, thus providing even stronger support for the use and the generalization of a summative model. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Judicial Summation: The Trial Judge's Version of the Facts or the Chimera of Neutrality

This paper analyses some of the rhetorical and linguistic features of two judges' summations to two different juries in a criminal case that was tried twice in the Tasmanian Criminal Court. In the first trial, the jury failed to reach a verdict upon a number of counts in the indictment. In the second trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. The purpose of this paper is to cast light upon how the linguistic and rhetorical features observed in the summations lent colour or weight to a particular interpretation of the events tried. The paper argues that the judge's summing up is part of the persuasive process of the criminal trial and that judges do present a version of the facts to the jury, deploying various language strategies to construct and communicate that version. The analysis focuses solely upon the judges' summing up of the evidence and the facts. It does not deal with directions or determinations concerning the law. Three major differences between the summations are considered: their distinct thematic approaches to the factual issues, the disparate levels of assistance they provide to the jury in assessing the evidence and their relative comprehensibility. The different thematic approaches produced disparate choices concerning the evidence -- its selection for consideration and its evaluation. The approach in the first summation resulted in an analysis of the evidence that favoured the accused. In the second summation, the thematic approach facilitated a more critical appraisal of the accused's case and a more favourable assessment of the complainant's version of events. The summations also provide differential levels of assistance and achieve differential levels of comprehensibility. The first summation provides relatively little guidance to the jury in evaluating significant items of evidence. In contrast, the second trial summation gives a more directional appraisal. It also achieves a greater level of clarity in the communication of key ideas than the first summation. Both distinctions are attributed to the discourse structures of the summations and to the second summation's reliance upon such organisational and rhetorical devices as repetition, enumeration and rhetorical questions. They are also attributed in part to the comparative syntactic simplicity of the second summation's sentences. It is the conclusion of this paper that the trial judge's linguistic, discourse construction and rhetorical skills are central to the clarification or obfuscation of the facts and issues in a case. How judges say what they say is significant at two levels of sense construction -- at the level of what Bernard Jackson calls signification and at the level of communication.