“同案同判”蕴含着“遵循先例”么?——一对易于混淆的概念及其澄清

Does “Treating Like Cases Alike” Entails Stare Decisis?——Conceptual Clarification of A Pair of Perplexing Ideas

字面或严格意义上的“同案同判”是有关法律规范性判断必然性的模态命题。法官必须在事实相同的多个案件中作出相同判决构成这个模态命题的正面部分,而当法官在事实相同的多个案件中作出不同判决时,这个命题的反面部分认定这些判决中必然蕴涵错误。如此理解的“同案同判”意味着案件事实属性和法律属性或案件事实属性和司法判决之间的随附关系,它无关正义、平等等实质价值,中立于任何裁判理论,甚至无关理性或合理性的最低要求。在制定法背景下,同案同判要求只是“依法正确判决”的附带现象,在概念上并不包含“遵循先例”,也无法合乎逻辑地推论出“遵循先例”的要求。“遵循先例”必须依赖法治、平等等实质道德论证。

“Treating like cases alike” in the literal or strict sense is a modal claim about normative legal judgments.The positive part of this claim is that a judge must make the same decision when deciding cases with the same facts;if a judge made different decisions when deciding cases with the same facts,the negative part of the claim entails that he must have been made one or several mistakes.“Treating like cases alike”in this sense is a claim about the supervenience relationship between facts of the cases on the one hand and the legal properties or legal judgments on the other.It has nothing to do with substantial values such as justice and equality.It is also neutral with respect to any theories of adjudication and makes no commitment to rationality or reasonableness.Against the background of statutory legal system,“treating like cases alike” is a mere epiphenomenon of deciding cases according to the statutory law.It does not incorporate stare decisis conceptually or entail it logically.It means that any successful justifications for stare decisis must be substantive ones.