【摘要】： 法律推理作為一種基本的方法在法學家的理論研究和法律工作者的司法實踐中一直被廣泛地運用。廣義上的法律推理,滲透于立法、執(zhí)法、司法以及各種法律實踐和認識活動的全過程。司法推理屬于法律推理中的一種,從狹義上講,司法推理特指法官判案時所運用的推理,是法官在適用法律的過程中,根據(jù)邏輯推理的規(guī)則,結(jié)合“以事實為根據(jù),以法律為準繩”的原則,運用科學的方法和規(guī)則為所得結(jié)論提供正當理由的一種邏輯思維活動。 由于社會生活的復雜多變以及制定法的局限,法官并非總能找到相應的法律規(guī)范作為案件的裁判依據(jù),因而在司法推理中勢必將遭遇大前提缺失的情形。司法推理大前提的構(gòu)建,其實質(zhì)就是找法的過程,找法的結(jié)果不外乎三種:一是有明確的法律;二是有模糊的法律;三是無任何法律規(guī)定。第三種情形,即通常所謂的大前提缺失。大前提缺失的司法推理中,法官的價值判斷不可或缺,而類比推理則是其典型形式。 本文除引言外,共分為三部分。 引言部分:提出問題,即當司法推理缺失大前提時,法官究竟應如何裁決?通過援引“安樂死”的案例來表征大前提缺失的情形,從而引出論題并明確本文的討論范圍。 第一部分:司法推理概述 首先,論述法律推理與司法推理的關(guān)系,一方面,法律推理是司法推理的上位概念,司法推理屬于法律推理中的一種;另一方面,二者在適用范圍等方面存在不同;其次,闡述司法推理作為一種獨立的推理形式具有的特征:(1)司法推理是法律適用的推理;(2)司法推理是一種實踐性推理,具有很強的實踐性;(3)司法推理是一種尋求判決理由正當性與合理性的證立活動。再次,分析司法推理在司法裁判中的作用,司法推理有利于作出令人信服的判決,有利于發(fā)揮司法裁判的作用。最后,討論司法裁判模式與司法推理的關(guān)系,并強調(diào)司法裁判過程就是主要運用司法推理的過程。 第二部分:司法推理大前提缺失的表現(xiàn)形式及成因 這部分從司法推理的大前提入手,分析司法推理大前提缺失的表現(xiàn)形式及其成因。本文所述司法推理大前提缺失是指法律存在漏洞的情形。法律漏洞源于法律的概念和區(qū)分,由于對法律可以依照不同標準作不同劃分,與此相應,對法律漏洞也可作不同的分類。本文主要分析了幾種常見的法律漏洞:自始漏洞與嗣后漏洞、部分漏洞與全部漏洞、真漏洞與假漏洞。法律漏存在的原因涉及哲學、邏輯學、立法技術(shù)等諸方面。 第三部分:大前提缺失時司法推理的運用 這部分既是本文的核心內(nèi)容,也是本文的落腳點,主要討論大前提缺失時法官的價值判斷和類比推理在司法推理中的運用。 大前提缺失時,法官往往要運用法學原理,充分考慮到社會發(fā)展的要求,對所有支持和反對的主張都進行充分、認真的衡量,作出妥當?shù)倪x擇。價值判斷在此過程中起著非常重要的作用,離開了價值判斷,大前提將無法構(gòu)建,司法推理也將無法進行。 類比推理是大前提缺失時的典型推理形式,其理論基礎是“類似案件類似處理”。類比推理在審判實務中主要有兩種形式,即類推適用和判例類推。類推適用是根據(jù)案件相似而適用同一法律規(guī)范而進行的推理,判例類推則是根據(jù)案件相似而適用以前判例所適用的原則或者方法進行推理,或者是作出與先前判例相同的判決,它包括遵循先例式判例類推和借鑒先例式判例類推。
[Abstract]:As a basic method, legal reasoning has been widely used in the legal research of jurists and the judicial practice of legal workers. The legal reasoning in the broad sense is permeated into the whole process of legislation, law enforcement, justice and various legal practice and awareness activities. The judicial reasoning is one of the legal reasoning, in the narrow sense, the judicial reasoning refers to the reasoning used in the judgment of the judge, which is the principle of the judge in the course of the applicable law, according to the rules of logical reasoning and the principle of the "on the basis of the fact that the law is the yardstick". The use of scientific methods and rules provides a good cause for the conclusion of the logical thinking. Because of the complex and changeable social life and the limitation of the development law, the judge is not always able to find the corresponding legal norm as the judge basis of the case, so it is inevitable that there will be a large loss in the judicial reasoning The essence of the method is to find the law, the other is the law of the fuzzy, and the third is no law. The rule of law. A third situation, usually so-called big front. The judgment of the value of the judge is indispensable, and the analogy-based reasoning is the book. Form. In addition to the introduction It is divided into three parts. The introduction part: the question is put forward, that is, it is the premise of the lack of judicial reasoning How should the judge decide? By invoking the case of the "Euthanasia" to characterize the situation of the large-premise deficiency, the lead-out theory The scope of the discussion is to be defined and made clear The first part: the summary of the judicial reasoning first, the relation between the legal reasoning and the judicial reasoning, on the one hand, the legal reasoning is the upper concept of the judicial reasoning, and the judicial reasoning is one of the legal reasoning; the other party On the other hand, judicial reasoning is a kind of independent reasoning form. (1) Judicial reasoning is the reason for the application of the law; and (2) the administration of justice. The reasoning is a practical reasoning, which has strong practicality; and (3) the judicial reasoning is one. Re-analysis of the role of judicial reasoning in the administration of justice, and judicial reasoning is in favor of making order In the end, the author discusses the relationship between the judicial decision model and the judicial reasoning, and emphasizes the relationship between the judicial decision model and the judicial reasoning. The process of judicial decision is the process of using judicial reasoning. The second part: the form and the cause of the lack of the large-premise of the judicial reasoning from the judicial reasoning On the premise of the great premise, the paper analyzes the expression of the deficiency of the premise of judicial reasoning. The lack of judicial reasoning in this paper means the existence of a loophole in the law. The legal loophole is derived from the concept and the distinction of the law. In this paper, several common legal loopholes are mainly analyzed in this paper. Self-originating vulnerability and subsequent vulnerability, partial vulnerability and full vulnerability, true vulnerability and false leakage The reason for the existence of the law is philosophy and logic. The third part: The application of judicial reasoning in the absence of large-premise is not only the core of this paper, but also the article. This paper mainly discusses the judgment of the value of the judge and the application of the analogy-based reasoning in the judicial reasoning. To the request of social development, all the support and the opposition should be fully and carefully measured, and a proper choice is made. The value is judged here. It plays a very important role in the process, and leaves the value judgment, and the premise will not be constructed, and the judicial reasoning will not be carried out. The analogy reasoning is the typical reasoning form in the case of a large premise, and its theoretical foundation 鏄，

本文編號：2501446