类案适用的司法论证

Judicial Argumentation on Application of Similar Cases

适用类案裁判需先通过类案检索寻找类案,然后进行类案适用的司法论证。类案适用的司法论证,包括类案的判定论证和适用过程论证两个阶段。以作为陈述的案件事实为案件相似性的判断标准,可将递进式同质论证确立为类案判定的论证模式。类案适用的过程论证,由基于类案的法律推理和类案推论的保证性论证构成。在前一环节,要在类比推理的基础上附加依据一般性规则的论证,确保类案适用过程具有正当性;在后一环节,可借助保证性论证的一般形式,解释法官在类案推理中对一般性规则的选择,通过作为保证性论证补充形式的差异重要性排除论证与重要相似性缺失论证,回应论辩中的相反意见。若案件之间的相似特征与差异特征的重要性相当,则可补充权衡性论证。类案适用及其司法论证凸显了制定法传统中司法案例的应有功能,为法律的统一实施提供并补充了重要机制。

To apply similar cases in judgment,a judge should first search for similar cases through similar case retrieval,and then carry out the judicial argumentation on the application of similar cases,which consists of two stages,i.e.,identification argumentation on similar cases and process argumentation on the application of similar cases.By taking “case facts as statements” as the judgment standard of case similarity,the progressive homogeneous argumentation can be established as the argumentation mode of identification of similar cases.The process argumentation on the application of similar cases consists of legal reasoning based on similar cases and guaranteed argumentation on similar cases inference.For the former,the argumentation according to general rules should be added to analogical reasoning so that the application process of similar cases can be justified.For the latter,the general form of guaranteed argumentation can be used to explain the reasons why a judge chooses the general rules in reasoning,while the exclusion argumentation on important differences and the absence argumentation on important similarity,as supplementary forms of guaranteed argumentation,can be adopted to respond to the opposite opinions in the argument.If the importance of similarities and that of differences between cases are equivalent,the trade-off argumentation can be used as a supplement.The application of similar cases and its judicial argumentation highlight the due function of judicial cases in the tradition of statutory law and provide and supplement important mechanisms for the unified implementation of law.