案件事实，还是叙事修辞?——崔英杰案的再认识

Fact or Rhetoric: Restudy on the Cui Ying -jie Case

作为审判依据的案件事实并非纯然得自证据,而是一种在修辞中完成的故事。证据所能得出是零散的、片段化的事件,事实则是情节化、戏剧化的全景叙事,根据相同的证据和已经获得确认的事件,可以形成不同的事实文本和判决结果。崔英杰案提供了一个细致的实例,展示出解释、挑选等修辞手段在案件审理中形态和作用,以及最终的情节化、戏剧化的案件事实如何得来。更进一步,修辞并非仅仅是语言的装饰或者说服的手段,实际上修辞本身就是事实的建构,而不同的叙事文本背后又隐含着修辞者的立场抗衡。

The fact of a case that results in judicial decisions is not a direct outcome of evidences but a production of rhetoric. As an appropriate example, the Cui Ying - jie Case shows that what evidences can provide are scattered events, which are vague and meaningless and not able to lead to any judicial opinions until being transformed into a theatrical narrative via rhetorical skills. Further more, rhetoric in legal procedures is not merely a skill for story telling or persuading. It is actually the formation of the fact and appears to audients in the form of the fact itself.