法律论证如何“融贯”?——基于“斯科特杀妻案”的语用分析与建构

没有直接证据是否可以定罪?没有直接证据的定罪是否违背"无罪推定"原则呢?我们常常看到法官在此类案件的判决书上写道:犯罪情节构成一个相互印证,且又完整的"证据链"。然而它们是怎样"相互印证"的,为什么能够构成一个完整的"证据链"?法官的判决书上却无下文。事实上,"证据链"的每一个链点,均是一个事实情节,这些事实情节的内在要素与要件构成,均相互印证或相互支持,整个"证据链"的"融贯"机制,实际上因为其使用了回溯性的语用推理,正是语用推理为证据链的融贯性论证提供了新路径和新方法。

How to be Coherent in Legal Argumentation

Whether a person can be convicted without direct evidences？ Whether a conviction without direct evidences violates the principle of Presumption of Innocence？ In the judgment, we often see the phrase ： The circumstances of the crime constitute a mutual verification, and formed a complete chain of evidences. But how to confirm each evidence, actually, the whole chain of evidences is based on the pragmatic inference （reductive inference）, found on the consequences and indirect facts, through contextual reconstruction, toward the real situation for retro- spective. In paper, pragmatic inference （reductive inference） provide typecast and modeling for the chain of evidences to confirm each other. The pragmatic context method produces a new method of situation reconstruction of the chain of evidences.