裁判事实与案件真相——从“彭宇案”真相浮出入手

Judicial Fact and Truth of Case——From the Perspective of Emerging of Peng Yu Case's Truth

"彭宇案"真相的浮出引起了人们关于裁判事实和案件真相关系的深入思考。裁判事实不同于案件真相:前者是裁判者的一种主观性命题陈述或判断,具有可谬性;而后者则是案件已经发生过的客观情况,具有真实的客观给定性。基于维护司法裁判正当性和提高民众司法信任度的要求,裁判事实应当最大程度地符合案件真相,具体实现路径有三:一是应当明确裁判者认定事实的内在理性思维进路,二是应当有效导控裁判者认定事实过程中的非理性因素,三是应当配置科学的裁判事实认定的外在程序。

The emerging of Peng Yu case＇ s truth arose some consideration about the relationship between judicial fact and truth of case. Judicial fact is absolutely different from truth of case. The former are the subjective statements or judgments from judges which have the possibility of being wrong and the later are the past objective things which have the rigid objectivity. However, with the requirement of maintaining the justice of judicial verdict and strengthening the people＇ s judicial faith, judicial fact should at the most accord with the truth of case. For that aim, three steps can be done. First, the inner rational thought access of judges should be cleared. Second, the ir- rational factors of judges should be efficiently controlled. Third, the outer scientific procedure of fact-finding should be equipped.