“凶宅”类案件中的法律论证评析

Analysis on Legal Argumentation in Haunted House Cases

不同的法官对"凶宅"案件的认识意义不同,以致在实务判决中出现了支持"凶宅"诉求与不支持"凶宅"诉求的两种相反判决方向。从方法论上去检讨发现,法教学义的论证思路虽然能实现合法性证立,但其判决结果与社会期待的正义相背;以诚实信用原则为基础的论证思路是可取的论证进路,实现了规范正义与社会正义的统一,但增加了法官的合理性论证负担。通过后果主义检校发现,法教义学方法在解决此类案件中不符合理性目的,从而确立了诚实信用论证路径在此类案件中的排他性地位。

Understanding the meaning of different judges on ＂Haunted House＂ case is different, so that the emergence of two opposite direction decision support ＂Haunted House＂ appeal and does not support ＂Haunted House＂ appeal judgment in practice. The thought of demonstration teaching method meaning although can achieve legitimacy justification, but the verdicl and the social expectation of justice back; The way of argumentation to the principle of honesty and credit as the foundation is, an acceptable argument approach , the realization of the unity of norms of justice and social justice, but increased the burden of proof of rationality of the judge. Consequentialist calibration established exclusive status of honesty and credit in such cases, demonstrate path.