情理推断在刑事证明中的规范运作 以事实证成理论为分析框架

情理推断是以经验知识为前提的推论,其在司法证明中的作用是必要但危险的。我国现行印证证明模式中并没有包容情理推断的空间,但其却在实践中隐性运作,同时因缺少约束机制而易于导致权力滥用甚至恣意裁判。为化解合法性与正当性危机,有必要规范情理推断在司法证明中的运作。然而,传统印证证明理论的外部视角,无法描摹司法证明的全貌,可以引入一种内部观察视角作为补充。司法证明在结构上是包含价值判断的论证式经验推论,事实认定因而具有似真性。在似真性证明的制度语境中,情理推断作用于从证据命题推导出案件事实的证明过程之中,辅助裁判者认定并证成对事实的确信。在该事实证成的理论分析框架中,情理推断的规范运作需要以认知开放的竞争性论辩程序为场域,以包容性的证明方法体系为前提;为防止权力滥用,还应给裁判者施加事实证成义务。

Regulating Argumentative Experiential Inference in Criminal Judicial Proof A Normative Theory of Factfinding Justification

Experiential inference is necessary but dangerous in judicial proof.China’s criminal justice system is meant for pursuing the accuracy of judicial fact-finding,where there is no room for experiential inference.However,experiential inference has been broadly used implicitly and probably arbitrarily in legal practice,which results in both the legality crisis and the legitimacy crisis.Therefore,it needs to be controlled legally.However,the corroboration theory is restricted by an external perspective that the judicial proof could not be holistically established.Fact-finding justification offers a normative theory from an internal perspective.The judicial proof,in nature,is an argumentative inference which is meant for a plausible and justified fact-finding outcome.Experiential inferences,together with relevance,are used for drawing inferences from evidentiary facts to elemental facts,and then justifying the found fact that judges are convinced of.China shall embrace an adversarial process in order to enlighten professional judges’cognitions.Most importantly,to prevent from arbitrariness,judges shall execute the duty to justify the facts that he/she finds morally plausible.