论文部分内容阅读
司法正义一般表现为形式正义与实质正义两种形式,法律修辞是基于价值判断基础之上的说服与沟通的论证方式。在司法正义的实现过程中,对实质正义的论证必须借助于法官的自由裁量,而法官行使自由裁量权的过程即是进行法律修辞的过程。遵守法律的确定性是自由裁量式修辞的底线,追求裁判的可接受性则是自由裁量式修辞的目标。在通过类推将实质正义普遍化为形式正义的过程中,类推本身即为一种修辞手法。这种基于法官个人价值判断基础上的修辞论证要具备更强的可接受性,就要求法官从单向说服向双向对话转变,从无语境向有语境转变。
Judicial justice generally manifests in two forms: formal justice and substantive justice. Legal rhetoric is a demonstration of persuasion and communication based on value judgments. In the course of the realization of judicial justice, the demonstration of substantive justice must be based on the discretion of judges, and the process of judges exercising discretion is the process of legal rhetoric. The certainty of observing the law is the bottom line of discretionary rhetoric, and the pursuit of acceptability of adjudication is the goal of discretionary rhetoric. In the process of generalizing substantive justice by analogy to formal justice, analogy itself is a rhetorical device. Such rhetorical argumentation based on judge’s personal value judgment should have more acceptability and require judges to shift from one-way persuasion to two-way dialogue and from no-context to contextual one.