论文部分内容阅读
已有研究发现,人们作出与法律相关的决策时,存在系统性背离内在一致性的现象。这些研究着眼于英美法系国家的实践,围绕与陪审团相关的法律决策展开。本文关注的问题更进一步,也更为本土化:经受法律教育的人,在法律决策中是否也出现这种现象?研究采用两个心理实验,分析五大组共769名受试者。基本发现是:受过法律教育的人在进行法律决策时也会出现折中效应、对比效应等系统性的背离内在一致性的现象。这种现象根植于人的理性局限,与年龄、学历、教育背景等因素联系较弱。这些发现对特定的法律现象(如公众舆论与审判的关系)有较强解释力,在一定意义上,也向律师提供了改进辩护策略的建议。更重要的是,从根本上质疑了现有法律决策公正(“同等情况,同等对待”)的可能性——如果不改进法律决策过程,人的理性局限将很可能导致不公正。
It has been found that there is a systematic deviation from internal consistency when people make legal-related decisions. These studies focus on the practice of Anglo-American legal systems around jury-related legal decisions. The issues of concern to this article are further and more localized: Is this phenomenon also seen in legal decision-making among people who have undergone legal education? The study used two psychological experiments to analyze a total of 769 subjects in the five major groups. The basic finding is that people who have been educated by law have systematic compromises, such as trade-offs and contrasts, that depart from internal consistency when making legal decisions. This phenomenon is rooted in the rational limitations of people, with age, education, educational background and other factors weak. These findings have strong explanatory power over certain legal phenomena (such as the relationship between public opinion and trial), and to a certain extent, they also provide advice to lawyers on how to improve their defense strategies. More importantly, the fundamental question of the possibility of fairness in existing legal decisions (“equal status, equal treatment”) - the rational limitation of humankind will most likely result in unfairness without improving the legal decision-making process.