司法裁判中的事实及其客观性

Facts and Their Objectivity in Judicial Decisions

在近年来学界发生的一场跨学科论战中,双方围绕事实的概念、证据的概念以及两者的关系等核心争点展开论辩。在澄清司法裁判之论证结构的前提下可以发现,“以事实为依据”中的“事实”,主要指的是作为裁判结论之依据的案件事实。事实认定是一个从证据材料到证据事实,再到案件事实的过程,其间存在各种认知性推论和评价性推论的空间,有时甚至可基于法律规则直接进行事实认定或推定。司法裁判中的证据既可指证据材料,也可指证据事实,但两者与事实(案件事实)均不相同。案件事实是认识论意义上的事实,但预设了一种对客观真相的本体论承诺和规范性诉求。它可区分为案件事实认知和案件事实命题两个层面,其客观性由聚合论、共识论和符合论三重维度来确保。总之,“以事实为依据”的主张应当得到维系,用“以证据为依据”来替代它并不妥当。

In an interdisciplinary dispute in the academic community in recent years,the two sides debated the core issues such as the concept of facts,that of evidence and their relationship.On the premise of clarifying the argumentative structure of judicial decisions,it can be found that the“facts”in“(adjudication)based on facts”mainly refer to facts of the case which constitutes the basis for the conclusion of judgment.Fact determination is a process from firstly evidence materials to evidence facts,then from the latter to facts of the case.There is room for various cognitive and evaluative inferences,and sometimes facts can even be directly determined or presumed based on legal rules.Evidence in judicial decisions can refer to both evidence materials and evidence facts,but neither is the same as the facts(facts of the case).Facts of the case are facts in the epistemological sense,but they presuppose an ontological commitment and normative claim to objective truth.They can be divided into two levels,ie.,the cognition and the proposition about facts of the case,whose objectivity is ensured by three dimensions of convergence theory,consensus theory and correspondence theory.In short,the assertion of“(adjudication)based on facts”should be maintained,and it is not appropriate to replace it with“(adjudication)based on evidence”.