本文選題：法官思維 + 司法三段論��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：法律思維是與特定的法律職業(yè)相聯(lián)系的,也是法律職業(yè)共同體的人通過法學(xué)教育和實踐體驗所形成的獨特的思考方式。法官是國家審判權(quán)的行使者,且往往是公平、正義的象征。在法律思維中的典型思維就是法官思維,法官思維具有典型的特征,即合法性、中立性、程序性、復(fù)雜性等,法官思維的每一個特征都區(qū)別于大眾的思維,該思維是法官公平行使審判權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)。在這些特征的基礎(chǔ)上,司法三段論推理模式作為法官思維的典型范式,其作用不容忽視。而這一的常用思維——司法三段論不能滿足法官思維的需要,不能滿足日益變化的社會法治的要求。其自身的缺陷,如大前提存在漏洞、小前提的事實不清等等,會導(dǎo)致法官無法做出審判。因此,法官需要綜合考慮多種因素,在法律允許的范圍內(nèi),運用多種思維方式來進行案件的審理。作法律來源于社會,而社會生活是紛繁復(fù)雜,因此在對案件的審理中,法律的滯后性等特點使法官會出現(xiàn)無法可依的情況,而這與法官思維的合法性相沖突的。對于如何解決沖突,就需要法官不斷提高自己的法律職業(yè)素養(yǎng),不斷的學(xué)習(xí)法律知識,借鑒其他法律思維的方式,為實現(xiàn)正義,為社會主義法治建設(shè)做出貢獻。 本文的第一部分,旨在探討作為法律思維典型的法官思維不同于大眾思維的特征。為了更好的認識法官思維,本文從法律職業(yè)的角度對法官思維所屬的法律思維以及關(guān)于法律思維的研究呈多樣化的特征進行研究分析。正是法律職業(yè)的特殊性,使得這個群體思維有自己獨特之處。法律思維可分為立法者思維、司法者思維、執(zhí)法者思維以及守法者思維,而法官思維屬于司法者思維。法官的身份及其職責(zé)決定了法官必須站在中立的立場,去解決當(dāng)事人糾紛、化解矛盾、促進社會的公平、維護社會的穩(wěn)定。正是法律職業(yè)的特殊性,使得這個群體思維有自己獨特之處。它不同于眾思維,具有合法性、中立性、程序性、復(fù)雜性等特征。作為法治建設(shè)中的一員法官思維的建立和完善尤為重要,法官思維的提高是社會法治建設(shè)的重要組成部分。 本文的第二部分,旨在探討法官思維的典型范式——司法三段論。通過第一部分對法官思維特征的研究,我們得知,作為法官思維的典型,司法三段論在法官審理中發(fā)揮著重要的作用。亞里士多德被稱為是三段論思維的鼻祖,其三段論從產(chǎn)生到現(xiàn)在都一直在被不斷研究。由于三段論是司法三段論的來源,三段論的推理規(guī)則司法三段論也應(yīng)該遵守。三段論審判作為法官審判模式頗具其獨特性,他能提高法官的斷案效率,限制法官的任意性。這種思維模式受到法官的青睞,但是,它并不是完美的,還是存在一些不足。這些不足與法官的思維特征存在矛盾,這就需要法官的運用其他思維方式來彌補司法三段論的不足,從而提高法官思維。 本文的第三部分是關(guān)于法官思維的完善措施,在分析了法官思維的特征,法官思維的范式之后,我們可以看出,在司法實際中,司法三段論這種常用的思維不能滿足法官思維的需要,不能很好的讓法官在斷案中保證法律效力和社會效力的統(tǒng)一。因此,本文從法官審判的技術(shù)上、法官自身的素養(yǎng)以及法官審判經(jīng)驗的相互借鑒上,對完善法官思維提出了建議,使法官在裁判時能夠不局限于三段論的審判模式,更好的實現(xiàn)裁判的公平,盡快的得出法律裁決;另外他國的裁判經(jīng)驗也為法官思維提供了借鑒,在演繹推理之外,類推的判例法也能為法官的思維提供參考,能符合法官思維的復(fù)雜性特征;而作為法官其自身的因素也會影響其思維,因此,從自身素養(yǎng)的培養(yǎng)做起,不斷提高思維層次,成為公平和正義的捍衛(wèi)者。
[Abstract]:The legal thinking is related to the specific legal profession, and it is also the unique way of thinking formed by the legal profession and practice experience of the legal profession community. The judge is the envoy of the judicial power of the state, and is often the symbol of fairness and justice. In the legal thinking, the canon thinking is the judge's thinking, and the judge's thinking has the allusion. The characteristics of the type, namely, legitimacy, neutrality, procedural, complexity, etc., each characteristic of the judge's thinking is different from the masses' thinking, which is the basis of the judge's fair exercise of the judicial power. On the basis of these characteristics, the judicial syllogism model is the typical paradigm of the judge's thinking, and its role can not be ignored. And this one is Chang Yongsi. The judicial syllogism can not meet the needs of the judge's thinking, and can not meet the demands of the changing social rule of law. Its own defects, such as the existence of loopholes in the big premise, the fact that the small premise is not clear, and so on, will lead to a judge unable to make a trial. Therefore, the judge needs to consider a variety of factors in a comprehensive way and use more in the scope of the law. The law comes from the trial of the case. The law comes from the society, and the social life is complicated. Therefore, in the trial of the case, the lag of the law causes the judge to be unable to rely on, and this is in conflict with the legitimacy of the judge's thinking. For the solution of the conflict, the judge needs to improve himself constantly. In order to achieve justice and make contributions to the construction of socialist rule of law, we should constantly learn legal knowledge and learn from other ways of legal thinking.
The first part of this article is to discuss the characteristics of the judge's thinking, which is typical of the legal thinking, which is different from the mass thinking. In order to better understand the judge's thinking, this article studies and analyzes the legal thinking of the judge and the research on the legal thinking from the angle of law profession. The special nature makes the thinking of this group unique. Legal thinking can be divided into legislative thinking, judiciary thinking, law enforcement thinking and law-abiding thinking, and the judge's thinking belongs to the judiciary thinking. The judge's identity and responsibilities determine that the judge must stand in a neutral position to solve the parties' disputes, resolve contradictions and promote the conflict. The fairness of the society and the maintenance of social stability. It is the special nature of the legal profession that makes the group think its own unique features. It is different from the public thinking, with the characteristics of legality, neutrality, procedural, complexity and so on. It is particularly important to establish and improve the thinking of a member of the judge in the construction of the rule of law, and the improvement of the thinking of the judge is the social law. An important part of the construction of governance.
The second part of this article aims to explore the typical paradigm of the judge's thinking - judicial syllogism. Through the first part of the study of the judge's thinking characteristics, we know that, as a typical example of the judge's thinking, judicial syllogism plays an important role in the trial of judges. Aristotle is called the ancestor of syllogism and its syllogism Since the syllogism is the source of the syllogism, the syllogism of the syllogism should also be observed. The syllogism, as a judge's trial pattern, is quite unique. He can improve the judge's efficiency and limit the arbitrariness of the judge. This mode of thinking is favored by the judge, However, it is not perfect, or there are some shortcomings. There is a contradiction between these deficiencies and the thinking characteristics of the judge, which requires the judge to use other ways of thinking to make up the insufficiency of judicial syllogism and thus improve the thinking of the judge.
The third part of this article is about the perfect measure of the judge's thinking. After analyzing the characteristics of the judge's thinking and the paradigm of the judge's thinking, we can see that in the judicial practice, the common thinking of judicial syllogism can not meet the needs of the judge's thinking, and it can not make the judge ensure the legal effect and social effect in the case of the judge. Therefore, on the basis of the technology of judge trial, the judge's own accomplishment and the mutual reference of the judge's trial experience, this paper puts forward some suggestions on perfecting the judge's thinking, so that the judge can not be limited to the trial mode of the syllogism in the referee, better realize the justice of the referee, and get the legal adjudication as soon as possible; in addition, the referee of his country is a referee. The test also provides reference for the judge's thinking. In addition to deductive reasoning, the analogical case law can also provide reference for the judge's thinking and meet the complexity of the judge's thinking. As a judge, its own factors will also affect his thinking. Therefore, from the cultivation of his own accomplishment, it will constantly improve the level of thinking and become the defending of justice and justice. Guard.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D916

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王延超;司法三段論的邏輯結(jié)構(gòu)與價值分析[D];河南大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號：1812097