判例的类比要素:情景、中项与等值 以刑事裁判为视角

Analogical Elements of the Precedent in Criminal Judgment Situation,Median,and Equivalence

指导性案例的指导性得到了一定程度的认可,但是存在着曲高和寡的现象。众多因素中,对判例独立性价值的无视无疑是深层次原因。这涉及到法官自由裁量权的定位,更涉及到对法律基本原则和解释方法的综合运用。遵循判例的优势在于满足了法律语言的情景化特点。离开了情景,法律商谈作为一种特殊商谈方式无法实现,适用的漏洞无法根本修复。类比不是奢侈品,而是普遍存在的实践理性。等值的判断无法通过类型化语言的方式简单给出答案,通过类比,延伸出案件的同质性特征,实际上产生的是一个体系化的分支。类型化的解释更多体现了政策的特征,无法证明结论的正当性,原则规范也难以得到体现。指导性案例的优势在于编纂特征,从而一定程度避免了裁判理由与随附意见的混淆,裁判的约束力和说服性也相对明确。其标准首先体现为裁判要点(要旨),裁判要点(要旨)是类比中项的关键,也是最终的结论。不仅裁判要点(要旨)的内容需要规范化,在确定中项内容时也需要考虑相关的裁判理由。遵循先例必然存在“可能的类比、必然的类比、发挥具体功能的类比”,这都在加大类比的风险,所以,需要时刻牢记的是:“一个与‘普遍规则和原则’冲突的先例不具有约束力。”

The guiding effect of guiding cases has been recognized to some extent,but it is still toohigh to be appreciated.Among the many causes,the ignorance of the independent value of precedents isundoubtedly the most important.This involves the judge's discretion,but also the comprehensive application of basic legal principles and interpretation methods.The advantage of following precedents is that itmeets the situational characteristics of legal language.Without the situation,legal negotiation cannot berealized as a special way of negotiation,and the loopholes in application cannot be completely filled.Analogy is not a luxury,but common practical rationality.The judgment of equivalence cannot simply obtainthe answer by means of typed language.It extends the homogeneity of cases by analogy,which in factgenerates a systematic branch.The typed interpretation more reflects the characteristics of the policy,itcannot prove the legitimacy of the conclusion,and it is difficult to reflect the principles and norms.Theadvantage of guiding cases lies in the codification feature,which avoids the confusion between the judgment's reasons and the accompanying opinions to some extent,and the judgment's binding force and persuasiveness are relatively clear.The standard firstly lies in the main points of the judgment,which arethe key to the analogical median and the conclusion.Not only the content of the main points of the judgments needs to be standardized,but the relevant judgment reasons need to be considered when determining the content of the median.Following the precedents,there must be"possible analogy,inevitable analogy and analogy with specific functions",all of which increase the risk of analogy.It is necessary tokeep in mind that"a precedent that conflicts with universal rules and principles is not binding."