司法论证检验制约司法假定的制度设计

On system design about judicial argumentation verifying judicial assumption

基于法律方法的普遍适用,拨开"法律人思维"论战的迷雾后,裁判思维过程相继面临着认知路径的深层次拷问。处理好假定与论证之间的关系不仅是法教义学与实用主义两种进路达成基本共识的支撑点,而且从假定到论证乃为裁判思维过程的认知路径。在此认知路径中,司法论证是通过本身具有的可验证性功能实现对假定检验修正的,而这一功能又可从可证成性与可证伪性两方面来深度把握。司法假定并不必然确保类比本身所应然达到的同等对待。我们在个案中具体审视司法论证的可验证性功能,就可本真感知论证对假定真值性检验的重要意义,从而使裁判最大限度的接近正义。

Based on general application of legal method , through pushing aside the fog of ＂lawyers thinking＂ controversy, thought processes of decision have been facing deep - seated torture of cognitive path. Dealing with the relationship between assumption and argumentation is not only the supporting point of a basic consensus reached by two approaches legal dogmatics and pragmatism, but the cognitive path in decision thinking process from assumption to argumentation. In this cognitive path, judicial argumentation is by itself verifiable function that can realize test and correction for assumption, and this function can be grasped the depth by two aspects the justification and the falsification. Judicial assumption does not necessarily ensure that analogy itself ought to be achieved equal treat- ment. We specifically examine verifiable function of judicial argumentation in the case, and can genuinely perceive existence value of judicial argumentation on judicial decisions, thus make the decisions maximum close to justice.