情理推断的司法论证

Judicial Argumentation of Reasoned Inference

作为一种事实推论方法,情理推断在证据所提供的基础事实与待证事实之间以经验知识建立起思维联结的纽带。与其他司法证明方法相比,情理推断具有突出的个体性特征,事实认定者可能会将个体偏见误作共同经验,从而引发预设立场、过度联想等认知风险。作为情理推断结果的案件事实需要证成。针对作为推理大前提的经验知识,以隐性知识显性化过程协助法官约束自我偏好,以经验知识的共同性证成其正当性。在情理推断结构内部,证据所提供的基础事实是不可或缺的,在此前提下论证的重点在于推论前提间的逻辑关联。整体而言,情理推断的关键在于经验知识的理性化,在论证目标上应尤为关注法官可替代性的考量,在情理推断的个体性与司法裁判的可预测性所要求的张力之间寻找平衡。

As a method of fact inference,experiential inference establishes a link between the basic facts provided by evidence and factum probandum.Compared with other judicial proof methods,experiential inference has outstanding individual characteristics.Based on experiential inference,judges may mistake individual biases for common experience,which leads to cognitive risks such as presupposition and undue imagination.The case facts as the result of inference must be justified.In view of the empirical knowledge as the main premise of inference,the process of tacit knowledge explicit helps the judge to find and regulate self-preference and justifies the empirical knowledge by its publicity.Within the structure of experiential inference,evidence materials as the source of basic facts are indispensable,and the emphasis of argumentation lies in the verification of the logical correlation between the premises.As a whole,the key of experiential inference lies in the rationalization of empirical knowledge.In the objective of argumentation,we should pay special attention to the substitutability of judges,and find a balance between the individuality of experiential inference and the tension of the predictability of judicial decision.