事实发现：能动与回应之间

借助达马斯卡的政府功能影响司法程序的理论可以拨开当下我国＂能动司法＂语境下法官事实认定摇摆于积极发现和消极放任之间的理论迷雾。以其＂理想类型＂为标尺考察我国混合式诉讼模式下的法官事实认定,其特点,一是在纠纷解决方向上存在着官方控制的进退维谷和当事人程序行动的严重失衡,二是在政策实施方向上任何程序形式都有可能让位于和对接于＂宽严相济＂政策的主导地位。在我国转型背景下,国家功能在能动与回应之间流动、混合,相应地,法官事实认定程序在本质上要求政策实施和纠纷解决的适度折中,在适用范围上要求具体案件具体处理而作出多元化设计。

Fact-finding: Between Activeness and Reactiveness

We can break through the theoretical mist of whether judges ascertain the fact in adjudication actively or passively by employing Damaska＇ s theory about judicial proceedings influenced by state＇ s function. And through the lens of his ideological archetypes, our hybrid procedural mode shows its specialties： First, official＇ s control over evidence collection may stands at a nonplus and parties＇ activities may be severely unbanlenced under the intent to dispute-solution; and second, all kind of proceedings may give place to and join to the dominant status of leniency-severity policy in pursuit of policy-implementation. Under social transconformation, our state＇ s function is mixing activeness with reactiveness, respectively, the adjudicative proceedings of facts＇ assertion, essentially need measurably compromise policy-implementation to dispute-solution, and need diversify within spectrum of cases＇ kinds according to concrete circumstance.