摘要
法律三段论是刑事诉讼中控、辩、审三方所采用的最基本的法律论证模式,其背后的逻辑基础是什么,目前主要有三种观点:根据传统观点,法律三段论的逻辑基础是直言三段论;演绎逻辑基础论者主张演绎逻辑是法律三段论的逻辑基础;反演绎逻辑基础论者基本上否定了逻辑在法律审判中的作用。现实主义法学派的反演绎逻辑基础论观具有片面性,法律三段论应有其逻辑基础,应以非单调逻辑作为逻辑基础,用缺省规则表达无罪推定规则,重新修订传统法律论证理论,探讨刑事法律三段论的逻辑基础问题。
Legal syllogism is the basic model which is used by the accuser, the defender and the judge in criminal trial. What is its logical foundation.？ There are mainly three kinds of viewpoints up to now. According to traditional theory, it is categorical syllogism, and deductivists think it is whole deductive logic, while anti-deductivists deny that logic plays an important role in a trial. In this paper, our conclusion is that legal syllogism must have its logical foundation, so we criticize anti-deductivist standpoint of realism. In conclusion, we investigate the logical foundation of legal argument in criminal trial, and then revise the traditional legal argument the rule of presumed innocent in the default theory rule on the basis of non-monotonic logic by representing the rule of presumed innocent in the deiault rule.
出处
《山东大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2006年第3期33-42,共10页
Journal of Shandong University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)
关键词
三段论
法律三段论
刑事诉讼
法律论证
非单调逻辑
Syllogism
legal syllogism
criminal trial
legal argument
non-monotonic logic
