司法表述与司法分析的不同逻辑——以“杜德利案”为中心

Different Logic between Judicial Analysis and Judicial Statements——Focuses on the Case of Regina v.Dudley and Stephens

女王诉杜德利和斯蒂芬斯案是富勒"洞穴探险者案"思想实验的原型。通过对该案原初判决的研究可以发现,在无先例可以援引时,法官进行司法分析需要权衡不同决策的利害后果,进而选择能够激励对社会有益行为的法律立场;而对判决理由的论证所采用的道德性话语表述,则是为了获得服判效果进行的修辞。关于"洞穴探险者案",以富勒为代表的主流观点忽视了司法表述与司法分析的不同逻辑要求,使得一个蕴含着深刻司法智慧的案例成为了悬案。

Fuller s case of the Speluncean Explorers is derived from the case of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. By studying the original sentence,we find that judges need to weigh the outcome of different decisions when there is no precedent can be quoted. At the same time,judges justified the reason of sentence by the expression of moral discourse so as to strengthen its authority. Around the case of the Speluncean Explorers,the study ignores the different logic between judicial statements and judicial analysis represented by Fuller so as to make a case containing superior wisdom become a cold case.