中国古代判词的法学与文学价值

制作好判词是中国古代为官执政司法的一个重要内容。中国古代的判词发展,不但与古代社会的政治、经济和文化发展、朝代更替有着密切的关系,而且还与中国古代法律儒家化的进程有着密切的联系。判词要进行规范评价、旁征博引,就有一个引经据典的叙事说理过程,从而使判词具有强大的穿透力和不可违拗的说服力。古代判词的价值评价往往通过文情并茂的文学表现形式加以展现出来。对古代优秀判词加以批判地继承和转化,从而将今天的裁判文书写得更加完美,也会有利于今天的法治文化建设。     

中国古代判词与当代刑事判决书对比研究

中国古代判词作为古代司法官员听讼断狱所制作的司法文书,反映着中国历史上的礼法文化传统。当下中国的刑事判决书改革,不仅需要借鉴国外的先进庭审制度和制判模式,而且需要从我国的本土断案决狱文化中汲取营养,把我国优秀的传统法律文化发扬光大,从而更好地推动司法改革的发展。本文首先对中国古代判词进行分类,继而从古代判词的文学性特征、道德化倾向、天理、人情和法意的兼顾、文本结构和用词的感情色彩等角度探讨了古代判词与现代刑事判决书的差异,并揭示了其对当今刑事判决书改革的启示。古代判词的这些特征不仅有利于实现古代社会的司法目的,对于中国当下的司法改革,尤其是刑事判决书改革也具有现实的参考价值。     

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。     

判词点评——“阿宋诉李膺杀人案”

古代判词是我国古代法律文化中的璀璨明珠,本刊从本期开始设“古代判词点评”专题,对从先秦至民国的经典判词邀名家进行精彩点评,深刻剖析历代的法律思想、制度等,揭示判词背后蕴涵的伦理道德观念和司法理念。     

唐律“拷囚”制度评析

唐代是中国封建社会的鼎盛时期,唐代法律制度的发展又标志着中华法系的成熟与完善,本文力图从唐律中"拷囚"制度入手,评析唐代这一颇具特色的刑讯制度,以揭示出在刑讯这一古代司法制度领域中,唐律所体现出的成熟性。     

中国古代判词的伦理化倾向及其可能的效用

判词是古代司法官员审理案件的具结文书。中国古代判词融情、理、法于一体，运用情感和道德的说理艺术，具有明显的伦理化色彩，但其注重寻求个案的实质正义和宣教意义，不失为中国传统法律文化中的一份值得珍惜的遗产。重新认识和评价古代判词的内在精神实质及其效用，有利于革除我国现行司法判决文书刻板化、程式化的弊端，推动司法文化的改革和进步。     

论争议性案件中判决书说理方式的突破、挑战与应对

与以往的判决书相比,"惠阳83号判决书"在结构性说理、沟通性说理、说理方向、判词用语等方面实现了说理方式的突破。但这些说理方式在运用中也面临着论证随意性、以情理论证代替法律论证、论证的逻辑性不强等挑战。"惠阳83号判决书"在说理方式上存在的这些问题与法官没有坚持正确的方法论立场有关,故在方法论上的应对办法就是坚持正确的法教义学立场。它要求以法律规范为解决问题的出发点,要以法律规范作为证立的依据,不要轻易脱离"文本文义"进行说理,坚持规范基础分析方法。     

法律论证中的权威与正确性——兼论我国指导性案例的效力

法律论证既需要运用权威理由,也需要运用实质理由来证立法律命题。法律渊源是最重要的权威理由,它通过说明法律命题之来源的方式来证明后者的初步有效性。制定法与先例构成了法律论证之权威性框架的主要部分,制定法属于规范权威,而先例属于事实权威,它们在司法裁判中一般只需被指明。同时,法律论证的正确性宣称决定了法律论证也必须运用有效的实质理由,即对法律命题内容的正确性进行证立。这种论证既可以是法律体系内的论证,也可以是超越体系的论证。法律论证旨在于平衡权威与正确性,其中权威论证具有初步的优先性但并非不可推翻,权威性的强度与相关正确性论证的负担成正比。以此来分析,我国的指导性案例介于规范权威与事实权威之间,它的效力是一种"准制度拘束力"。     

中国古典法律解释的知识智慧--法律解释的知识形态

中国古代法律解释中的知识智慧,乃是在政治哲学———经学框架下的法律智慧。律学是相对独立的法律解释智慧,是运用经学的神髓来解释法律的问题,它的对象、问题、专门术语等等都是法律和法学的,它有自己的范畴术语、运思方法和知识体系。中国古代的司法裁判活动也为法学的创生提供了一种可能。中国古代的判词反映了法官的法学世界观、法律方法论和法律发现方法,在中国法学学术史上起到了极大的作用。     

法律论证理论中的证明证据和证成

法律论证理论是实践论辩理论的一个局域性的论证类型。法律论证的实质是论辩。法律论证中的证明和证据概念强调合法性。法律论证的一个重要概念是证成,它分为内部证成和外部证成两种证成形式,这些证成是由若干规则、公式和原则来构成的,用以在法律论证中获得健全的实践理性。     

The Effects of Juror Anonymity on Jury Verdicts

This study examined the effects of anonymity on jurors' verdicts and on jurors' feelings of accountability for their jury's verdicts. Twenty four-person anonymous juries and 20 four-person nonanonymous juries rendered individual and group verdicts for three student defendants charged with selling drugs on a school campus. When unanimous guilty verdicts were reached, juries imposed one of five punishments. Finally, jurors completed postdeliberation opinion and accountability questionnaires. As predicted, anonymous juries showed a higher rate of conviction (70%) than did nonanonymous juries (40%) when the evidence against the defendant was strong, supporting the hypothesis that anonymity would have a greater effect for situations in which there was relatively strong evidence of the defendant's guilt. Anonymous juries imposed the harshest punishment (expulsion) significantly more often than did nonanonymous juries. Contrary to predictions from differential self-awareness theory, anonymous juries did not report feeling less accountable than did nonanonymous juries. However, anonymous juries did see the process as significantly more fair than did identifiable juries.     

The Effects of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Verdicts: A Meta-Analytic Review

The effect of pretrial publicity (PTP) on juror verdicts was examined through a meta-analysis of 44 empirical tests representing 5,755 subjects. In support of the hypothesis, subjects exposed to negative PTP were significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty compared to subjects exposed to less or no negative PTP. Greater effect sizes were produced in studies which included a pretrial verdict assessment, use of the potential juror pool as subjects, multiple points of negative information included in the PTP, real PTP, crimes of murder, sexual abuse, or drugs, and greater length of time between PTP exposure and judgment. The effect was attenuated with student subjects, use of general rather than specific PTP information, certain types of PTP content, a post-trial predeliberation verdict, and specific types of crimes. Implications of these results are discussed, along with possible mechanisms that underlie the PTP effect.     

知识产权侵权案件裁判文书主文表述及执行问题研究

裁判文书是审判结果和判决既判力的最终体现。但几年来,从执行法官反馈的信息来看,对这些进入执行程序的知识产权案件操作还存在很多问题,其中既有法律制度方面的问题,也有实践操作的困难。这里所涉及的实际操作。主要是针对裁判文书表述的内容上出现了难以执行的情况。由于知识产权本身具有无形性、时间性等不同于传统民事中物权等权利的特点,在具体执行过程中也就出现了很多具有知识产权案件特色的问题。就此,我院就知识产权侵权案件裁判文书主文表述与执行中发生的问题进行了调研。     

美国陪审团的一致裁决原则：历史与当下

陪审团的一致裁决原则起源于14世纪的英国,作为一项普通法的传统,它在美国确立后经历了一个联邦强制适用与各州选择适用并存这一局面被明确和强化的过程。虽然饱受质疑,但是从一致裁决原则对陪审团司法工具价值和政治民主价值的发挥及对审判成本控制的影响这三个角度出发综合考虑,其在一定时间内还将继续存在下去。     

The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Meta-Analysis

The effect on juror verdicts of judicial instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence was evaluated using meta-analysis. One hundred seventy-five hypothesis tests from 48 studies with a combined 8,474 participants were examined. Results revealed that inadmissible evidence (IE) has a reliable effect on verdicts consistent with the content of the IE. Judicial instruction to ignore the inadmissible evidence does not effectively eliminate IE impact. However, if judges provide a rationale for a ruling of inadmissibility, juror compliance may be increased. Contested evidence ruled admissible accentuates that information, resulting in a significant impact on verdicts. Suggestions for how the courts may mitigate the impact of inadmissible evidence more effectively are discussed.     

The Bottom Line: The Effect of Written Expert Witness Statements on Juror Verdicts and Information Processing

Mock jurors recruited from jury rolls were either not given written statements of expert witnesses' direct testimony or were provided with such statements before or after the presentation of that testimony. Presentation of the statements before the testimony and cross-examination provided jurors with a schema that allowed them to distinguish more effectively among the claims of four differentially worthy plaintiffs because they processed more probative evidence than other jurors. Jurors in receipt of written statements before the testimony found the evidence to be more comprehensible than other jurors. Jurors provided with written statements following testimony and cross-examination were able to differentiate between the most and least severely injured plaintiffs, whereas jurors not in receipt of any written statements were unable to differentiate among any of the differentially worthy claimants. The limitations of this case management technique and of the study are discussed.