“洞穴奇案”的法理思考

Jurisprudential thoughts on “The Strange Case of Caves”

彼得·萨伯在所著的《洞穴奇案》一书中,讲述了14位法官在面对同一个案件时,由于秉持不同的法哲思想,给出了14份迥然不同的判决书。其中6份有罪判决、6份无罪判决,还有2名法官拒绝裁判,最高法院最终没有形成真正的判决意见,维持了原判。对"洞穴奇案"中各方争议焦点进行法理视域下的分析,认为应作出有罪判决。

Peter Saber, in his book The Strange Case of Caves , tells about fourteen judges who, in the face of the same case, have given fourteen different judgments because of their different philosophical ideas. Six of them were convicted, six were acquitted, and two judges refused to adjudicate. In the end, the Supreme Court did not form a real judgment opinion and maintained the original judgment. This paper makes a jurisprudential analysis of the controversial focus of all parties in the “Strange Case of Caves” and holds that a guilty verdict should be made.