刑事个案犯罪信息研判中的直言变形推理

刑事个案犯罪信息研判是指侦查人员在刑事个案侦查中,对某一刑事个案的现有犯罪信息进行分析研究,得出关于犯罪信息的新判断的思维过程,它以推理为主要信息处理方式。直言变形推理是刑事个案犯罪信息研判中一种较简单的推理,它包括直言换质推理、直言换位推理以及二者的综合运用。三者具有各自的优点和缺点,因此,在刑事个案犯罪信息研判中运用直言变形推理时需要遵守一些合理性原则。     

An exercise in scientific problem-solving: Illustrating the utility of the principles of the Sydney Declaration

In forensic science, scientific problem-solving is characterized by the recognition of traces as part of iterative reasoning processes to assign meaning to those traces in order to interpret and reconstruct events. Through a set of fundamental principles, the Sydney Declaration presents a foundation of forensic science through the lens of a scientist. The distinction between a scientist and a technician may require clarification—where a prototypical technician follows a prescribed set of ‘standard operating procedures’ and may be limited in the interpretation of the resultant data, the scientist utilizes knowledge, skills, experience and imagination to identify the issue at hand and develop lines of inquiry for testing and interpretation. This case report draws on the Sydney Declaration in order to highlight the importance of learning about events from careful consideration of both obvious and less obvious traces. A case involving the assault of a police officer is examined to illustrate the use of the Principles: the problem originally defined by investigators at the scene and later by prosecutors resulted in incorrect analysis and interpretation of traces, hampering efforts at an accurate reconstruction of events. This exercise serves to demonstrate that in order to engage in scientific problem-solving, it is necessary to apply observation and reasoning in forensic investigations in order to yield an outcome that can be clearly articulated. The overarching goal is to support the drive to improve forensic science practice, education, and research through a case illustrating the value of the principles of the Sydney Declaration.     

刑事证明法律推理客观性分析

刑事证明中法律推理的客观性不仅应体现在事实领域内,也应体现在价值领域内。它对于练就司法人员的理性思维、培养尊重程序意识、实现法治等有重要作用。刑事证明中法律推理的客观性的建构依赖于刑事证明法律推理自身的客观性、遵循逻辑基本规律及推理主体正确的价值观。而“天然逻辑学”对我国刑事诉讼中法律推理的客观性具有指导及释明作用,可为其科学建构提供逻辑理论基础。     

谈逻辑思维在侦破贪污案中的运用

在司法实践中，反贪侦查人员掌握正确运用判断、推理、充足理由律等逻辑规律及论证方法，是确定侦查方向、证明犯罪、打击犯罪的有力武器，为顺利进行诉讼提供了保障。     

司法审判的法哲学分析

司法判决是制度、事实、个人活动的合因之果,判决形成的思维工具包括法律解释和法律推理;判决以确定性为特征,而法官形成判决过程中的判断却具有综合性。     

Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.     

论情谊行为及其法律后果

情谊行为是指当事人为增进私人友谊或基于善良风俗实施的欠缺效果意思及其相应法律后果的双方行为。情谊行为引发的纠纷,近年来日益增多。但由于情谊行为制度理论研究的贫乏,最终导致类似行为的不同定性或不同裁判。应当运用综合因素判断法认定情谊行为,并明确情谊行为非契约上的法律后果及其侵权责任的减轻依据。     

论判例主义的推理模式

本文针对普通法国家以判例法为基本特征的法律结构,对法律推理中的判例主义模式进行了初步探讨。作者从判例主义遵循先例的基本前提入手,对法律推理中的事实和法律的发现,基本方法的采用以及推理结果的获取等问题进行了研究。作者认为,判例主义的推理模式是综合性的推理过程的体现,其终极目标是落实法官心中的正义观念。     

诉讼证据合法性问题辨析

案件事实只能通过证据来认定.证据事实可能与真实的事实有出入,只是案件事实的假象.较之于其它本质属性,诉讼证据的合法性的主要功能是为诉讼证据的认识提供检验标准,来确定证据事实的法律效力.它不是证据自身的物理属性而是外在的关系属性,它不属于证据的真实性问题而属于有效性问题.诉讼证据合法性体现了立法者对证据的标准的认识,具有主观性和历史性.在现代社会里,论证是认定证据的有效性的检验标准,因而,诉讼证据合法性问题便主要是通过建立具有理想的论证方式来增强诉讼证据的效力,促进合法性与其它属性的真正统一.     

从"无理"的判决到判决书"说理"--判决书说理制度的正当性分析

由于受到大陆法系传统的影响 ,我国判决说理并没有被制度化 ,甚至长时间囿于是否需要制度化的讨论中。笔者通过分析认为 ,在中国现有的司法语境中 ,判决说理具有急需正当化、制度化的内在需求。一是 ,判决说理是法官权力公开化的必然 ,同时也是一种法官自保的策略性选择 ;二是 ,判决说理是司法职能现代化的内在需求 ,力求通过判决说理达到当事人从内心“服判”的司法追求。笔者通过比较分析进一步指出了说理主体、说理对象等判决说理的前提性问题