论推定

“推定”一词由来已久，是证明事实的一种特殊证明方法。从本质上来讲，推定既不同于确认，也不同于法律上的拟制。推定只能建立在真实的、具有盖然效力证据的基础之上。它只是一种不完全的间接证明，是一种选择。同时，本文认为真正的无罪推定应当是：不能证明有罪，一律推定为无罪     

刑事诉讼证明中事实推定之运用

事实推定都是有基础事实的推定,都是可反驳的推定。事实推定同利用证据进行证明一样,是诉讼证明的一种方法。事实推定可以降低证明的难度,可以有效打击犯罪。对主观方面(如故意、明知、目的等)的证明可以使用事实推定;对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人是否实施某行为的证明也可以使用事实推定。对事实推定的反驳不宜规定过高的标准,只要有合理的可能性即可。事实推定的运用必须遵守严格的规则和程序。该程序应当保证被推定人的知情权,为被推定人提供充分反驳的机会。     

并非多余的事实推定

事实推定,是指法官依据经验法则选择事实之间的常态联系,借助推理的形式,由已知事实推断待证事实的一种事实认定方法。在我国,事实推定这一概念并不多余;同时,事实推定既不是推论或推理,也不是间接证据证明。     

推定在刑事诉讼中的适用问题研究

推定是一种替代性的司法证明方法,以基础事实与推定事实之间所具有的常态联系为前提,通过对基础事实的证明,可以直接认定推定事实的成立。目前我国刑事诉讼法确立了诸多以"非法占有目的""明知"等为要素的推定规范,很大程度上弥补了特定案件证据短缺、证明困难的不足。但一直以来,学者们对刑事推定适用过程中的证明标准、范围界限及效果未能形成统一,司法裁判中,过分运用经验和逻辑法则进行案件事实的推定,也不可避免地会导致司法的误判。文章认为,为更好地规避刑事推定的局限,有必要对其适用规则进行完善。     

公证证明效力研究

公证证明具有约束法院认定案件事实的效力，法院对公证证明事实的实质审查判断的自由裁量权受到限制或排除，对提出公证证明的当事人而言则具有免证的法律效果。公证证明在证据证明力方面具有优越性。公证证明的效力源于法律上的推定。公证对案件事实的证明存在复式证明和单式证明两种形式，无论哪种形式，公证文书都是一种证据，在证据属性上属于书证，且是公文书、报告性文书。应在民事诉讼法中明确将当事人要求确认公证文书真伪的诉讼作为确认之诉加以规定。除涉及公证文书本身的真实性和合法性、公证证明事项在内容上具有很强主观性以及其他难以通过公证确认其真实性和合法性的证据以外，其他经公证证明的事项无须质证。     

美国证据法上推定的学说与规则的发展

推定效力的确定是司法证明中的一个复杂问题.本文评析了美国证据法上关于推定效力的五种学说,其中,塞耶的"爆泡理论"即"转移举证负担说"和摩根的"转移说服负担说"是两大经典学说,成为证据法典中推定规则的直接法理依据.而"效力区分说"、"取消推定说"和"个别分析说"对立法和司法实践也各有影响.这些学说立足于普通法上丰富的司法经验,不同程度地反映了推定适用的规律,对我国的证据法建设具有参考价值.     

论书证复制件的证据效力

书证是诉讼尤其是民事、行政诉讼中最常运用的证据种类。现行法定证据种类中书证与其他证据种类发生重叠交叉,应重新厘定书证的内涵与外延。书证复制件在诉讼中也频繁出现,复制内容准确、复制方法科学形成的均是书证复制件。书证复制件的证据效力应从形式证据效力和实质证据效力来考量,法律应对书证复制件规定较为宽松的形式证据效力,对某些特殊的书证复制件由法律推定为具有与原件同等的实质证据效力。在法律没有规定的情况下书证复制件的实质证据效力由法官以利益平衡的原则进行自由裁量。     

民事诉讼中的事实推定探析

事实推定是一种特殊的司法证明方式,作为证据证明的辅助手段,有其特定的理论基础。事实推定的适用,不仅要遵循一般逻辑规则,而且要受特定的法律规则的约束,必须在穷尽了其他证明方法的情况下,事实推定才有适用的必要性,法官运用事实推定认定案件事实,必须心证公开,并且应当赋予当事人反驳的权利。事实推定能够产生转移提供证据责任的效果。     

2015—2016年中国证据法治前进步伐

2015-2016 年,我国证据法治建设继续稳步前行,在证据规则的完善、证据司法和证据科学研究等方面取得许多进展.以下从六个方面做简要的概括和评述. 一、证据规则不断完善 (一)《职业病防治法》创设可反驳的强制性推定 我国职业病认定实行推定制度.推定是标志基础事实与假定事实之间法律关系的证据法范畴.《职业病防治法》1 第 46 条第 2 款规定:"没有证据否定职业病危害因素与病人临床表现之间的必然联系的,应当诊断为职业病."据此,判断劳动者是否患有职业病,以其临床表现为准,只要临床表现具有职业病症,即可推定该病症是由于职业危害因素所致.不过,这种推定是一种可反驳的推定,条件是用人单位有证据证明该劳动者所患病症与其职业病危害因素无关.这虽然与一些国家将职业病认定设定为不可反驳的推定还有一定差距,2 但从保护劳动者的角度看无疑体现了证据法的和谐价值.推定的本质特征在于,它是在一个事实与一个假定之间建立的法律关系,3 而不是两个事实(基础事实与待证事实)之间的逻辑关系.从作用上看,只要企业、事业单位和个体经济组织等用人单位没有提供证据"否定职业病危害因素与病人临床表现之间的必然联系的",就"应当诊断为职业病",这是一种可反驳的强制性推定.创设该推定的目的,是为了保护处于弱势地位的劳动者因接触粉尘、放射性物质和其他有毒有害物质而引起疾病的健康权利,促进社会和谐发展.     

论事实推定和法律推定

首先研究推定的各种涵义,提出推定的基础是经验法则。然后集中分析事实推定与法律推定的概念特征及其相互关系,指出事实推定的实质是推理或推论;法律推定源于事实推定又高于事实推定,是在事实推定的基础上渗入了法律价值和政策需要,从而将事实推定的单纯经验逻辑上升为法律逻辑;法律推定和事实推定具有泾渭分明的区别也有千丝万缕的联系,事实推定作为一个法律术语有其存在的合理性。     

John R. Commons and Max Weber: The Foundations of an Economic Sociology of Law

This article underlines contemporary economic sociology's lack of interest – until recently – in legal phenomena, unlike the close attention paid by two historic figures in ‘economic sociology’, Max Weber and John R. Commons, to the relationships between law and economy. It argues that to grasp fully the importance of the legal dimension in socio‐economic analysis, we must return to their foundational insights. However, they particularly stress differences between Weber and Commons as to the unity or heterogeneity of law and the economy, the role of ethics, the search for an all‐encompassing approach in the construction of ideal‐types, the various forms of constraint that characterize law (whether psychological, economic, or physical), and the distinction between state law and non‐state law. The latter element is why the authors argue that due consideration for legal plurality should be a central thread in any sociological analysis of the interplay between law and the economy.     

NOT EVEN OUR OWN FACTS: CRIMINOLOGY IN THE ERA OF BIG DATA

Criminology is an applied discipline where the findings from the data collected and analyses conducted inform debates about policy and practice. For this to happen, a discipline must have an agreed‐upon set of facts to define the problem and suggest solutions. We can debate the soundness of fundamental data series, but these debates must take place within the confines of scientific inquiry and all data must be subjected to the same scrutiny. Data sources must comprise agreed‐upon standards for collection and be accessible for replication. The increasing use of “big data” has frayed this agreement about quality and accessibility and has made it more difficult for criminology to have its own facts. In this presentation, I define the term “big data” and argue it will be difficult for big data to replace traditional data sources and to live up to their potential for knowledge building. Finally, I suggest a few things that the discipline might do to address these problems of access and quality.     

实践法律观要义——以转型中的中国为出发点

在当今问题时代,对何谓法律的回答,应围绕事实与规范的紧张关系而展开。这一关系表现有二:认识论上的事实与规范的不对称性,伦理上的事实与规范的对立,前者极具普适性,而后者主要为中国特有。以往的法律观,集中于认识论,在事实与规范中偏袒一方,造成两者不可沟通。本文欲提取实践的两大要素,以"践行"应对两者在伦理上的对立,以"反思"解决两者在认识论上的不对称性,形成以"法是实践智慧"为核心命题的打通事实与规范的实践法律观。     

Unaccountable: The Current State of Private Military and Security Companies

Abstract

The current accountability system for private military and security contractors (PMSCs) is woefully inadequate, and mere enhancements in oversight cannot hope to remedy that failing. I contend that once we recognize the kind of accountability required of PMSCs, we will realize that radical changes in the foundational relationship between PMSCs and the state are required. More specifically, in order to be appropriately accountable, members of PMSCs must become a part of or, at the very least, directly responsible to the legitimate authoritative military or police structures, and there must be a clear and precise delineation of responsibility among public officials for holding individual members of PMSCs criminally liable.     

Rights-based rights

Ronald Dworkin maintains that particular rights, like the right to free speech and the right to own personal property, can be derived from a foundational right, the right to equal concern and respect. This paper questions the tenability of this program for rights-based rights. A right is an individuated moral or political guarantee which confers a specified benefit on each right-holder and which resists conduct that would derogate it. For there to be rights-based rights, both the foundational right and the rights it implies must satisfy this definition. It is doubtful, however, that the right to equal concern and respect should count as a right since the benefits it confers are at best highly controversial and may not be assignable to individuals. But even if we grant that the content of the right to equal concern and respect can be satisfactorily specified, the status of the derived rights remains problematic. The trouble is that the relation between the right to equal concern and respect and the rights it implies parallels the relation between the principle of utility and the rights it may imply. Both of these foundational principles can extinguish derived rights. Consequently, rights dependent on either of these principles are not trumps, and their standing as rights is suspect. I conclude that Dworkin's method of defending rights is inappropriate for the most important of our rights though it may well serve for less critical ones.     

医疗诉讼证据问题研究

诉讼的关键在于证据本身及其规则。一般来说,解决医疗诉讼的方式是：通过对各种医疗诉讼证据的运用来认知医疗争议事实。从而认定争议事实的客观真相,以此分辨出这争议事实中的是与非。从而顺利解决该纠纷;当出现证据不足或者证据灭失而导致无法认识医疗争议的客观真相时,就只能依靠医疗诉讼中证明规则来解决纠纷。病历真实、客观的疑问以及鉴定结论对因果关系认定的困难,使案件事实真相的认定出现障碍。应该改革病历的制作与管理,实行专家证人制度。我国现行的医疗诉讼实行举证责任倒置的证据规则,使医疗诉讼迅速增加,致使医院因赔偿导致的费用支出也大幅上涨。从而导致医疗费用的上涨以及医方为了减少医疗诉讼而采取防御性医疗措施,进一步加深了医患双方之间的矛盾。应该对举证责任倒置规则有所限制。     

The "utility" principle within the scope of forensic determination of blood kinship using serostatistics

A "realistic" prior probability is always based on case experience (Akten-a-priori). In serological opinions pertaining to parentage, the realistic prior probability is only one piece of information in the whole body of evidence before the judge and does not have any special significance per se. There is no such thing as a "neutral" prior probability. It either implies "ignorance," in which case it cannot be "information," or it must be taken in connection with the utility principle, in which case it is not a "probability." The utility principle is defined in law and cannot be expressed in figures. The utility principle takes effect only when the judge reaches a decision (on the basis of all the evidence before him). It determines the relative importance of the participant's objects of legal protection which are at issue in the case. The expert is bound to apply a neutral utility component, i.e., in a two-hypothesis case (the normal situation) the significance of both the null and the counter hypothesis must carry the same weight. A null and/or a counter hypothesis can combine several single hypotheses; the mean value of their frequencies is taken. As a rule, one should avoid using a "prior case probability" ("Akten-a-priori") when calculating a W value. An "expectation of error" should be as realistic as possible and hence be obtained using a "prior case probability."     

量刑事实证明初论

量刑活动与定罪活动的相对独立性,决定了量刑事实的构成、量刑证据、量刑事实的证明要求以及量刑事实的运用等不同于定罪事实。量刑事实的证明一般奉行“谁主张,谁举证”原则,罪重事实的证明应达到排除合理怀疑标准,罪轻事实的证明达到优势证据标准即可。     

隐私的价值独特性:个人信息为何应受保护?

要想准确理解已经开始施行的《个人信息保护法》,就必须恰当回答“个人信息为何值得保护”的问题,而这个问题的答案经常与“隐私”的价值关联在一起。但是,对隐私的理解,主要被一种“隐私并不具备独特价值”的化约论所统治;因此,只有击败化约论,才能最终证明隐私的价值独特性,也才能最终说明隐私为何值得保护。击败隐私化约论最主要的理由是,如果认为隐私不具备价值独特性,那么对任何特定个体而言,就只能提供“我是我”的对待,而这种对待将会带来贬损、甚至否认“我是人”的结果,这将会严重损害人的尊严。     

量刑事实证明初论

量刑活动与定罪活动的相对独立性,决定了量刑事实的构成、量刑证据、量刑事实的证明要求以及量刑事实的运用等不同于定罪事实。量刑事实的证明一般奉行"谁主张,谁举证"原则,罪重事实的证明应达到排除合理怀疑标准,罪轻事实的证明达到优势证据标准即可。