如何刻画法律推理中的事实与规范

法律推理过程包含着权力与利益、应然与实然、确定性与妥当性、客观解释与主观解释等矛盾,法律推理促动法律规范由普遍规则到个案规则适用,法律推理涉及法律事实认定、法律规范识别、法律价值追寻,涉及推理主体关于知识论与实践理性的思考,法律推理的重心由立法领域到司法领域、由法律本体论到方法论、由法律移植到制度理性整合、由宏观论证到微观分析的转向。法律推理呈现内部逻辑强制与外部言说理性互动的特征,已经由法律文本所体现的规范层面转向法律施行的实践层面,形成事实与价值、事实与规范的交互流转。     

司法裁判引证法律学说的功能研究——基于生效裁判文书的实证分析

法律学说是连接立法与实践的知识储备和理论桥梁,也是推动司法与社会互动的知识引擎和理论动力。学者的学术观点是法律学说的直接体现。在我国,存在司法判决引证法学学者观点的现象。实证研究表明,268份样本裁判文书中,有60位法学学者的观点被引证307次。法律学说在裁判文书中发挥着解释法律、论证说理及补充法律漏洞等作用,从而增强法官对法律事实性质或裁判结果判断的合理性和合法性,提升裁判结果的可接受性。从应然层面来看,法律学说要为司法裁判提供可能的参考答案,为司法裁判提供有效的法律方法以及通过司法裁判总结科学的司法规律。实证研究与理论分析表明,虽然司法判决可以成为法律学说的“试验田”,但是从主题任务和实践立场两分的角度看,法学与司法的适当分离是法治持续进步的阶梯。     

Deficits in Theory of Mind,empathic understanding and moral reasoning: a comparison between young offenders and non-offenders

Previous research suggests a lack of pro-social skills is characteristic of an antisocial or offending personality. It is therefore reasonable to assume that an inadequate understanding of another's mental state may contribute to antisocial or offending behaviour. Forty-six young-adult male offenders and a control completed measures to assess: Theory of Mind (ToM), empathic understanding (EU) and moral reasoning. Significant differences in the performance of young-adult offenders and the control group were detected in ToM, EU and moral reasoning with young-adult offenders scoring lower than the control group. A positive association was also found between ToM, EU and moral reasoning. These findings contribute to a further understanding of how individuals make sense of, and respond to, the social world around them. The ability to measure ToM, EU and moral reasoning and subsequently identify any specific deficits, as well as recognise the link between these three key skills, is not only useful for researchers but it will also allow practitioners to tailor existing (or develop new) interventions specific to the needs of an individual. This could be particularly useful in terms of recidivism when applied to those involved in antisocial or offending behaviour.     

后果主义与绝对主义道德推理的法哲学思考

道德的缺失,伦理的滑坡成为当今时代哲学研究的一大热点问题,每个民族自古以来都有对道德研究的不同理论,这些理论在实践中得到检验并不断发展,构成所谓的"哲学"内核。从法哲学的角度通过对后果主义、绝对主义道德推理的内容以及方法论后果论方面阐述了边沁的功利主义思想和康德的绝对主义思想的理论内涵,试图借鉴外国法哲学先哲的研究理论来解决当下中国存在的现实问题。     

对提高公安院校学生逻辑推理能力的思考

公安工作的每一个环节,都与逻辑有不解之缘。逻辑学作为公安院校学生的必修课程,如何通过教学提高学生的逻辑推理能力,是公安院校教学改革中亟待研究的一个课题,必须调整教学内容和教学计划,创新教学方法。     

罪刑法定原则及其司法化研究——以刑法解释为视角

罪刑法定原则的价值取向应当是限制国家刑罚权、保障公民自由,是入罪禁止机能和出罪解释机能的统一。我国现行《刑法》第3条具有中国特色的双向表述方式堵塞了去罪化的路径,应当修改为消极的表述形式。刑法解释是罪刑法定原则的必然要求,而罪刑法定要求以严格解释和可预测原则作为刑法解释的限度。为了真正实现罪刑法定的司法化,刑法解释需要树立新的刑法理念;进一步加强和规范立法解释并对刑事司法解释进行完善。     

网络视频教学资源建设与大学生科学精神的培养

我国高等院校学生接触的多是具体的学科知识和技能,很少获得系统的科学教育。网络视频教学节目在设计时可以从节目形式、选题、创作手法等几个方面实现科学精神的传播;同时引导大学生参与视频资源创作,培养他们理性怀疑、积极求证、多元思考、平权争论、宽容激励等科学意识,以潜移默化地将科学精神根植于学生心中。     

The logic of regulatory impact assessment: From evidence to evidential reasoning

Agencies involved in generating regulatory policies promote evidence-based regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) to improve the predictability of regulation and develop informed policy. Here, we analyze the epistemic foundations of RIAs. We frame RIA as reasoning that connects various types of knowledge to inferences about the future. Drawing on Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation, we situate deductive and inductive reasoning steps within a schema we call the impact argument. This approach helps us identify inherent uncertainties in RIAs, and their location in different types of reasoning. We illustrate the theoretical section with impact assessments of two recent legislative proposals produced by the European Commission. We argue that the concept of “evidence-based regulatory impact assessment” is misleading and should be based on the notion of “regulatory impact assessment as evidential reasoning,” which better recognizes its processual and argumentative nature.     

The Undesirability of Detailed Judicial Reasoning

In this paper we question the general practice in which Common Law based judicial systems produce detailed written decisions. The requirement to produce written court decisions is expensive and helps produce long delays. Furthermore, we show that the general applicability of detailed reasoning may be inefficient. Our method of proving this claim is to show that the individual litigants have almost nothing to gain from having a detailed written reasoning. In fact, most of the time, they are clearly better off by being able to switch to a policy that requires no written opinion. Our approach is most appropriate in circumstances of pecuniary private disputes where the parties involved act as rational utility, or profit, maximizers.     

浅议卫生“说理式执法”

如何深入推进“说理式执法”是目前卫生行政执法中较为重要的课题。本文从背景、概念、认识误区、存在问题、对策和建议等五个方面对说理式执法进行全面阐释。