论同案同判作为司法裁判的核心--一个基于系统论的描述

On“Treating Like Cases Alike”as the Core of Judicial Decision:A Description on the Basis of Systems Theory

目前,关于同案同判和依法裁判的性质和地位之争源于人们对司法裁判性质的认知分歧,因此,需要通过一套关于司法裁判的描述性理论来化解此争论。传统的法律方法论对类比的界定过于狭隘,故低估了类比在司法裁判中的地位。系统论从功能上将类比界定为一种系统回忆机制,该机制使得系统对结构的重复使用成为可能。被如此界定的类比充当着法律适用的核心机制,所有涵摄实质上都是通过类比的机制进行的。相比于涵摄,类比更具基础性地位,这使得同案同判相比于依法裁判,更能准确地反映司法裁判深层的运作机制。一种基于依法裁判来解释同案同判的方案因错误地将涵摄和类比割裂开来,故不仅无法解释同案同判,还对司法裁判造成曲解。同案同判凭借其反身性的自我适用,成功地对法律规则的普遍约束力和依法裁判作出解释,并提供了一种以司法为中心的依法裁判观。

The current debate on the nature and status of“treating like cases alike”and“judgment according to law”is due to the disagreement between the two sides on the nature of judicial decision,so it needs to be resolved through a set of descriptive theories of judicial decision.The traditional legal methodology defines analogy too narrowly,so the position of analogy in judicial adjudication is underestimated.Systems theory functionally defines analogy as a systematic recall mechanism that enables the systems to use their structures repeatedly.The analogy thus understood serves as the core mechanism for the application of the law,and all subsumptions are essentially carried out through the analogy mechanism.Compared with subsumptions,analogy has a more basic status,which makes the“treating like cases alike”more accurately reflect the deep operation mechanism of judicial judgment compared with“judgment according to law”.A scheme based on the interpretation of“treating like cases alike”in accordance with“judgment according to the law”incorrectly separates the subsumption from the analogy,so it not only cannot explain what is“treating like cases alike”but also leads to a misinterpretation of the judicial judgment.“Treating like cases alike”can successfully explain the universal binding force of the law and“judgment according to law”by virtue of its reflexive self-application,and provide a judicature-centered conception of“judgment according to law”.