摘要
法官预判的相对确定性体现出司法决策背后的思维认知具有相对的稳定化、持续化特性,这对于穿越错综复杂的司法决策发挥着特定的功用。智慧法院建设下智能技术在司法审判领域中深度融合应用,使法官的智能预判具有相对确定性的同时,也显现出更加精准高效的附加特质,当然也应警惕预判确定性契机中潜在的可能风险。法官确定性预判具有可废止性,其结论可得到复验改进,但试图改变预判背后的思维认知过程却是它遭遇的“虚假”困境。法官把确定性预判变得绝对彻底化,而智能预判更是直接转变为最终的裁判结论,这才是它遭遇的真正现实困境。真正的困境表征出法官“预判—证实”思维的单向推论特质,以及庭审程序一定程度上的虚化现象。困境生成的认知根源在于过度依赖卷宗笔录的审判认知结构,相应的纾解之道是重塑审判认知结构,渐进推动由侦查中心到审判中心的转变,发挥预判确定性的正向功用,从而逐步达致庭审证明过程的实质化。
The relative determinacy of judge’s prediction reflects that the thinking cognition behind judicial decision-making has the characteristics of relative stability and persistence,which plays a specific role in the judicial decision-making with complexity.Under the construction of Smart Court,the judge’s intelligent prediction has relative determinacy,as well as reflects the additional characteristics of more accuracy and efficiency.Of course,we should be alert to the potential risks in the opportunity of prediction’s determinacy.A judge’s determinate prediction can be defeasibility,and its conclusion can be improved through re-examination.However,to try to change the cognitive process behind the prediction will fall into a“false”dilemma.When the judge make a definite prediction into an absolutely determination,and an intelligent prediction is directly transformed into the final judgment conclusion,this is the real dilemma we will encounter.The real dilemma shows the one-way inference of judge’s thinking of“predict-confirm”,and the virtual phenomenon of trial procedure to some extent.The cognitive root of dilemma is that it is dependent on the trial cognitive structure of the dossier excessively.The corresponding way to solve the problem is to reconstruct the cognitive structure of trial,gradually promote the transformation from the investigation center to the trial center,and play the positive function of the determinacy of prediction,so as to achieve the substantiation of court hearing.
出处
《上海政法学院学报（法治论丛）》
2023年第2期73-85,共13页
Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science & Law(The Rule of Law Forum)
基金
2016年度教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“大数据时代下的司法理论与实践研究”的阶段性研究成果,项目编号:16JJD820004
关键词
法官预判确定性
智慧法院建设
“预判—证实”思维
庭审实质化
determinacy of judge’s prediction
construction of smart court
thinking of“predictconfirm”
substantiation of court hearing
作者简介
韩振文,法学博士,浙江工商大学法学院副教授,厦门大学党内法规研究中心研究人员。
