公开固然重要,说理更显公正——“公开三大平台”中刑事裁判文书公开之局限  

Reasoning Overwhelms Publicity in Respect of Unveiling Justice:On the Limitation of Publicity for Criminal Judgment Documents on the Three Main Public Platforms

作　　者：孙万怀[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学,上海200042

出　　处：《现代法学》2014年第2期42-53,共12页Modern Law Science

基　　金：国家社科基金项目"犯罪治理控制与刑事司法犯罪化的反思"(11BFX102);上海市一流学科建设项目

摘　　要：无论是强调对裁判进行监督还是主张对裁判进行研究,无论是针对法官职业化还是对职业共同体的形成,公开更多地表现为一种形式意义,并不意味着公正自洽。实证结果显示,严重缺乏说理的裁决比比皆是,不仅地方法院的裁决如此,最高人民法院的一些刑事裁决亦是如此。缺乏说理导致裁决由于缺乏事实与规范的沟通从而沦为一种缺乏权威性的"单纯的暴力"。刑事裁判必须进行说理的理由在于我们生活的世界是一个现象世界,没有很好的说理进行沟通,则彼岸只是自在之物。说理又是一个逻辑推演的过程,选择方法的正确性涉及到裁决的被认同的程度。对辩护意见缺乏归纳和说理,实际上对辩护一方的不尊重,导致裁判中立大打折扣。刑事裁决说理性的缺失阻遏了实践与法学的通道。在司法实务与学术结合得比较好的表征中,都是以判决的丰富说理性为依据的。在刑法学研究比较成熟的地区,刑法学理论恰恰就是由大量司法判例的说理进行提炼的基础上发展起来的,由于裁判说理极具价值性乃至个性的色彩,往往会引起广泛的讨论,进而引发一系列的理论研究向纵深发展。Publicity is deemed as kind of formal meaning instead of just and self-consistent, either when it is applied to emphasize the supervision of judgment process or judgment research, or when it contra poses judge professionalization or the formation of professional community. It has been approved by solid evidence that adjudications which are insufficient in reasoning are prevalent, even some criminal adjudications from Supreme Court, let alone those from local courts. Insufficient reasoning results in the adjudication descending to ＂simple violence＂ without authority due to absence of the link-up between facts and rules. The reason why criminal adjudications need reasoning is that the world we live in is reasonable. Without moderate reasoning for communication, the reasonable world is just thing-in-itself on the opposite side. Reasoning is a process of logical deduction, the validity of choice shall be considered in degree of identity of adjudications. The insufficient conclusions and reasoning in defending opinion disrespect the defense party, which deteriorates the neutrality of adjudications. The insufficiency of reasoning in adjudications represses the tunnel linking the practice and the Science of Law. Criminal theory is exactly deemed to be developed both in scope and in depth on the basis of essential reasoning extracted from plenty of adjudications.

关 键 词：公开 公正 说理 意见 学术 

分 类 号：DF73[政治法律—诉讼法学]