为后果主义审判正名——基于理论谱系的梳理

Justifying Consequentialist Judgement——A Systematic Review Based on the Theoretical Lineage

法教义学与社科法学的理论分歧集中体现为法律人思维是“规则至上”还是“后果导向”的问题,但这一学术争论充满着社科法学对法教义学的误解,导致了一种“强版本”的后果主义审判理论的产生。这一理论版本错误地将后果考量普遍化而使其具有解构法治的危险。为此,在司法决策研究中,应区分规范性与描述性两种研究立场,区分根据后果裁判的“理由”和影响后果裁判的“因素”,并构建将“法外因素”转化为“法内理由”的法律方法。为了维护法治,应主张一种“弱版本”的后果主义审判理论,即将后果考量纳入法教义学的框架之中,实现规则至上与后果考量之间的兼容。

The theoretical differences between the legal dogmatics and social science study of law are mainly reflected in the issue of whether legal thinking is rule-based or consequentialist.However,this academic debate is filled with misunderstandings of legal dogmatics by social science study of law,leading to a strong version of consequentialist judgement theory.This theoretical version mistakenly universalizes the consideration of consequences and poses a danger of deconstructing the rule of law.Therefore,in judicial decision-making research,it is necessary to distinguish between normative and descriptive research perspectives,distinguish between reasons based on consequentialist judgements and factors that affect consequentialist judgements,and construct a legal method that transforms external legal factors into internal legal reasons.To maintain the rule of law,we should advocate a weak version of consequentialist judgement theory,which incorporates consideration of consequences into the framework of legal dogmatics to achieve compatibility between rule-based thinking and consequentialist considerations.