“流浪猫案”裁判的逻辑批判——以证明规则为视角

Critique on Arbitration Logic of the “Stray Cat Case”from the Perspective of Proven Rules

对引起巨大争议的"流浪猫案"的解读存在多重视角。从证据法角度而言,本案法官对经验法则的认识存在不足,同时对事实推定与证明责任的把握也存在偏差,并且对争议颇大的"按比例判决"理解也有待矫正。这都极大地削弱了判决的说服力和实质上的妥当性。在民事诉讼自由心证主义原则下,我们应当从理论和实践层面严格把握对经验法则的界定,同时正确处理事实推定和证明责任的关系。在程序正当的前提之下,实现判决结果的实体公正。

The interpretation of “stray cat case” proves multiple perspectives. From the point of the evidence, the judges lacked focus on the rule of thumb and they did not grasp the fact presumption and the burden of proof. Meanwhile, they misunderstood “judgment in proportion”, which greatly imparied the conviction and essentially adequacy. Under the principle of free proof of the civil lawsuit, we should strictly grasp the definition of the rule of thumb and correctly cope with the relationship between fact presumption and the burden of proof so as to realie substantial justice of the verdict on the basis of due process.