《折狱厄言》与裁判官“内心独立”——兼论中西裁判官“内心独立”的取向差别

On Zhe Yu E Yan and "Mental Independence" of Judges——Orientation Differences of "Mental Independence" between Chinese and Western Judges

清人陈士矿作《折狱厄言》一书,其中多谈到裁判官在审理案件过程中应该做到"内心独立",主张裁判官应独立于自己的爱憎、好恶、喜怒哀乐、旨趣等各种可能影响案件公正审理的心理因素,坐到"中"的境界。这一源自儒家"尚中"、"中庸"的思想,应合了今天司法独立原则当中的一个重要部分,即法官的内心独立。但与此同时,中国传统法文化当中的"内心独立"观念又与当前中国法学语境中所言说的"内心独立"是有差别的,因为当前中国法学的司法独立理论是来源于西方的,因此将中国传统法文化与西方法学语境当中的"内心独立"思想进行比较,有助于我们今天司法独立的理论研究与实践。

Chen Shi-kuang, a scholar in Qing Dynasty, in his works of Zhe Yu E Yan, stated that in case hearing, the judge should be mentally independent, free from any mental factor which would impair the justice such as one's love and hate, preference and resentment, mirth and sorrow, and hobby or interest, so as to keep 'neutral' . Such idea, originated from the 'mean orientation' and the Doctrine of the Mean out of the Confucian Ethics, adhering to part of the contemporary principle of judicial independence, namely, the mental independence of the judge. But in the meanwhile, the 'mental independence' in Chinese traditional legal culture differs from that in the contemporary legal context, as the present judicial independence theory in China was transplanted from western countries. Thus, the comparison of the 'mental independence' between Chinese traditional legal culture and western legal context will contribute to the contemporary theoretical study and practice of judicial independence in China.