摘要
在刑事司法的决策环节,经验法则的摄入常常起到举足轻重的关键作用。一旦操作不当,可能会导致裁判结论的不尽人意,甚至触发针对司法公正的质疑与排斥。就后果而言,要么可能造成机械司法的僵化现象;要么容易引发权力滥用之恣意趋向。为此,经验常识的适用必须保持合理的尺度界限而置于论理法则的框架内。进而,经验及论理法则的共生性质得以凸显。在具体个案的法律涵摄中,司法人员理解及运用此一规则的程度,将直接影响最终的决策趋向。哪怕只是出现些许的偏差,都不免基于事实与意见相混同等因素,而造成裁判结论的有失公允。藉由一系列典型案例的剖析,实体认定、证据权衡以及程序裁量等不同领域内的经验主义范式,亦呈现出各自的特质及运行机理。
The intake of rules of thumb often plays a pivotal role in the criminal justice decision-making process.If operated improperly,it will inevitably lead to unsatisfactory conclusion by the adjudicator,even trigger the questioning and rejection of judicial justice.As far as the consequences are concerned,it may either cause a rigid phenomenon of mechanical justice,or inevitably lead to a tendency to abuse power.For this reason,the application of empirical knowledge must be maintained within reasonable scale boundaries and placed in the framework of the rules of reason.Furthermore,the symbiosis nature of experience and theories of theory is highlighted.In the legal implications of specific cases,the extent to which judicial personnel understand and use this rule will directly affect the final decision-making trend.Even if there is only a slight deviation,it will inevitably be based on the mixed facts and opinions or other factors,which will cause the judgment’s conclusion to be unfair.Through the analysis of a series of classical cases,this article shows the characteristics and operational mechanism of empirical paradigm in such fields as entity identification,evidence trade-off and procedural discretion.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2021年第3期100-116,共17页
Global Law Review
作者简介
孙皓,天津大学法学院副教授。
