司法证明认知目标论的反思与展望

Reflections and Perspectives on the Cognitive Goal Theory of Judicial Proof

司法证明的认知目标不仅决定了诉讼制度与证据制度的具体设计,而且直接影响着人们对法律或司法的期待与信任。关于司法证明认知目标论,我国诉讼法学界基本分为三种观点,即作为传统解释的客观真相论、作为主流见解的法律真相论,以及以意见裁判主义为代表的后真相认知观。在司法证明认知目标中,“真相”仅仅占据有限地位,并且协商过程中的意见共识往往十分难得,并非总能如愿实现。因此,我们应当更加重视司法证明所立足的正当理由,即证成。推进司法证明认知目标从真相、共识转变为证成,既是对司法证明主体理智能力的尊重,也是顺应认知规律的必然要求。

The cognitive goal of judicial proof not only determines the specific design of the litigation system and evidence system,but also directly affects people's expectation and trust in law or justice.With regard to the cognitive goal of judicial proof,there are basically three views in China's litigation jurisprudence,namely,the objective truth theory as the traditional interpretation,the legal truth theory as the mainstream opinion,and the post-truth cognitive view represented by opinion adjudicationism.In the cognitive goal of judicial proof,"truth"only occupies a limited position.Moreover,consensus of opinion in the consultation process is often rare and not always achieved as desired.Accordingly,we should pay more attention to the justification for judicial proof.To promote the cognitive goal of judicial proof from truth and consensus to justification is not only to respect the rational ability of the subject of judicial proof,but also to comply with the inevitable requirements of the law of cognition.