论文部分内容阅读
在美国,各级法院历来都重视运用逻辑推理来审理案件。普遍盛行的四种类型的推理是原则推理、类推推理、政策推理以及叙事推理。而前两种推理方法不论是对于法官、起诉或被告一方的律师、还是法学院的学生而言都是成功办案的基本技能和知识。一例发生在从法国巴黎飞往美国迈阿密飞机上的引爆未遂案涉及到了对事实的认定,法规的解释以及先例的引用,同时也对美国的联邦地方法院形成了挑战。地方法院成功地运用了原则推理和类推推理,对争议的两个词语“公众运输”、“运载工具”进行了合理、科学的解释由此对以后的判决形成了先例。
In the United States, courts at all levels have always attached importance to using logical reasoning to try cases. The four types of reasoning that are prevalent are the principles of reasoning, analogical reasoning, policy reasoning, and narrative reasoning. The first two methods of reasoning are the basic skills and knowledge of a successful case handling, whether for a judge, a prosecutor or a lawyer on the defendant’s behalf, or a law school student. An attempt to detonate an aircraft flying from Paris, France, to a U.S. plane in Miami, involves an identification of the facts, an interpretation of the statute, a precedent reference, and a challenge to the United States federal district court. The District Court successfully applied principle reasoning and analogical reasoning to make a reasonable and scientific explanation of the two terms of the dispute, “public transportation” and “means of delivery”, thus setting a precedent for future judgments.