The dualism of the legal person's thinking and the judge's case-handling method and thinking with Su Lishang and Sun Xiaoxia's female ideology, and denying the legal person's existential approach to methodological doctrine, advocates "beyond the law" and balance, follow the rules, and go beyond the law. The legal person can not rigidly adhere to the legal rules and the concept logic. In the face of rigid laws and livelihoods, it cannot be rigidly considered as a resultist consideration. However, when considering the social consequences, we cannot exaggerate the function and meaning of “beyond the lawâ€, and cannot cover and negate the “beyond the law†function already existing in the method of doctrinal law in the methods of the Anglo-American legal system. The Negative Thinking Method of the Legal Person in the Methodology of Negation .
This has always been necessary for the maintenance of law itself.
Carl Enghis's justice is suitable to provide legal basis for the law with an ultra-positivist and progressive attitude. The stability of the law is appropriate to explain the reason for the law with a positivist and conservative attitude.
Radbruch [2] We can never prove that we are awake, saying that we are awake.
Wu Jingxiong (3) Achievements of the "Study on Judicial Function of Transitional China", a Major Project of the Social Science Key Research Base.
[1] (German) Carl Enghis: An Introduction to Legal Thinking, translated by Zheng Yongliu, Law Press 2004, page 4. [2] (German) Radbruch: Philosophy of Law, Wang Pu Translation, Legal Publishing Society Press, 2005, p. 102. [3] Wu Jingxiong: Transcending the Eastern and Western, translated by Zhou Weichi, Social Science Press, 2002, p. 149. Literati thinking “The topic of reflection will also attract professional legal people and many Fascists have doubts about established confidence.
Zhu Wen’s core view is to emphasize the methods and ideas of American-style judges under the leadership of legal realism. (If we do not use inspiring ideas, let us reflect on the limitations of legal dogmatics and reflect on the helplessness of the rules. Just like Suli With the new changes in legal development, the legal person must pay attention to the new challenges and new problems in the legal areas that are caused by the development of socio-economic science and technology, and sticking to the traditional legal dogmatics does have its limitations. The following position in Su Li’s article: Legal persons cannot be confined to legal rules and concepts, and face rigid laws and livelihoods, they cannot be stereotyped without result-oriented considerations.In this sense, scholars prefer academics to reality. The Judicial View of Justice, emphasizing ways to transcend the law Zhu Wen touches on the differences between legal dogma and realism jurisprudence, and this difference is actually what Donald Black calls the “Jurisprudential model†and “Sociological model†(ie Luhmann's so-called Binarycode thinking model). The difference and opposition between them, Faced with the tension and asymmetry between legal rules and social facts (economic, political, social, cultural, moral, etc.), in the author's opinion, the function of “beyond the law†cannot be exaggerated when emphasizing social consequences. In addition, meaning and significance, it is impossible to negate legal teaching methods that specifically think about legal rules. The two should not be a simple relationship, but should be combined and coordinated. In fact, they can also be combined and can be coordinated. This article will address this issue in the final section.
However, in order to emphasize the meaning of “surpassing the law†and “consider the consequences†of realist jurisprudence, Su Li does not directly argue this point of view. Instead, he seeks arguments through the following paths and perspectives: It is hard to originate from contemporary law in China. The professional sports person "shanzhai" has a fictitious topic in the U.S. version or out of his own interests. Second, he questions the existence of "legal man thinking," thinking that there is no unique legal person thinking, and that "legal blindness also has laws. "Thinking" to negate the uniqueness of the legal person's thinking; Third, it is believed that legal dogmatics is only concerned with concepts, regardless of consequences, and does not know how to "beyond the law". It seems that only American legal persons know "beyond the law" and understand consequences. Zhu Wen used the misunderstood, exaggerated, and extremist views as arguments, which not only made it impossible for a meaningful academic opinion to gain support, but also spawned many specious questions. Before discussing these related issues, we must start with the relationship between legal thinking and legal methods. From the perspective of common sense and general knowledge of legal methods and legal thinking, we must clarify some of the issues that have been confused in Su Li’s articles.
It is not the copycat version of the "ThinkingLikeALawyer" from the United States. The inevitability and necessity of the "legal person's thinking" are closely related to the background that China's judicial reform needs to be professionalized. Therefore, it is closely related to the theories and concepts of legal formalization, legal profession, proceduralism, and judicial professionalism. It has its own connotations and has become the mainstream legal consciousness of the times.
From the perspective of Suli's many works, he has a skeptical attitude towards the professionalization of the legal person,[6] and therefore there will be his views against the legal person's thinking today. The author does not want to elaborate on the professionalization of legal persons and the theory of legal professionalism, and only clarifies the meaning of the legal profession from the analysis of several basic concepts. The issue of Suli first involves whether we need to recognize the necessity of "Lega1Profession" and "Professionalization". The daily so-called "Occupation" is usually divided into two types. One is "the so-called Trades. It does not require much training, such as craftsmen. As for the healers and teachers, it is Profession. It requires a lot of cultivation, and it also works hard. The object is not for the benefit of others but for the happiness of the group...â€[7] Only a small amount of industry develops into a profession, it is professional, autonomous (independence), public, and has a unique Skills and ethics, pre-entry "threshold" requirements, etc. 〔9〕 The “many literacy†required by the legal person includes the legal person’s professional thinking ability and needs to be cultivated through long-term training. It is also based on the particularity of legal thinking and legal methods that makes legal workers become LegalProfession (legal profession) in the sense of professional division of labor, rather than Trade (industry) in the general sense. Occupation is "fiduciary, not just a business" - this is the words of a professional lawyer from the United States. 10) If we recognize the professionalism, autonomy, publicity, and unity of the legal profession, we will not deny the existence of "legal human thinking" that is different from popular thinking. There was a basic contradiction in China's judicial circles before the 1990s: the need for judicial professionalization and a serious shortage of professional lawyers. The legal scholars and the legal profession in China have precisely focused on the shortage of professional lawyers at that time. It was only in the 1990s that they emphasized the importance of “legal people thinkingâ€. In the age when there was no specialization and professionalization of legal activities, there was no legal profession (legal person) or legal method, and thus there was no legal person's thinking. This is the most anxious matter in the legal and jurisprudence circles of our country. If it is recognized that the legal profession is important to the rule of law in China, it must recognize legal professional methods and professional thinking, especially the method of thinking of legal teaching as the basic skill of professional legal persons. Conversely, if you do not recognize the importance of the legal profession for the rule of law in China, you do not need to recognize the legal professional approach and professional thinking.
The legal method is the core element of the legal person's thinking, and the legal person's thinking is the result of the long-term effect of the legal method. Legal thinking [6] Although Li Li discusses the “specialization†of legal activities, he also analyzes the negative effects of specialization. His dissertation may be the earliest article in contemporary China that deals with the negative effects of judicial specialization. It is academically very thorough and thoughtful, but in practice it transcends the background and objective conditions of the times. Therefore, on many occasions, Suli showed a tendency not to support the professionalization of judges and the professionalization of legal activities. For example, he [7] Zheng Xiaotong: two ideals of university education.â€, Containing Yang Dongping, “College Spiritâ€, Lixue Culture Co., Ltd., published in 2001 edition, page 52. [8] See Li Xuebiao: “Legal Professionalism†, China University of Politics and Law Press, 2007, page 6. [0] (US) Brian Kennedy: American Legal Ethics, translated by Guo Naijia, published by He Wan Weeks in 2005, page 7. Brian Kennedy He is a professional lawyer in California.
The main body is the legal person, the thinking object is the legal rule and the fact of the case, and the thinking method is the third element of the legal person's thinking.
The main part of the legal person's way of thinking is the legal method. It is the method that influences thinking and determines whether the subject of thinking has special thinking. As the name implies, the legal method is a method of forming a legal judgment. It is mainly a method of legal person thinking and applying the law. In other words, the legal method is a set of professional methods and is a masterpiece. Whether or not a legal person has a unique mindset depends on the uniqueness of the legal approach. If the legal method is owned by all the people, then legal thinking has no independent status, just like the public thinking. On the contrary, if the legal method is unique, then the legal thinking is also unique. The legal person and the public may be aware of the object of thinking. For example, everyone is concerned about the law and the facts of the case. The method element is the core element that distinguishes professional thinking from popular thinking.
Thinking training usually occurs in professional education or vocational training, or in the process of teaching and teachers. Legal professional (professional) thinking training is no exception. It occurs more often in the legal education process and appears in the mouth of legal teachers. Why do we not hear professional lawyers and judges talking about legal thinking because they are trained and legal thinking has become a habit for them. Just as adults grow up and become accustomed to washing their faces, walking, writing, etc., they will not be as concerned as children about the correctness of their actions in washing their faces, walking and writing, and whether they meet the requirements of their parents' first education.
Therefore, Suli's article logically begins with legal education and talks about legal thinking. Su Li admits that there is a reference to “thinking like a legal person†in the United States and lists the requirements that actually exist in American law school teaching, but he tries to explain it from its purpose. Denying the existence of "legal person thinking". He said that the "ThinkingLikeALawyer" in American legal education is just to "hope them (first-year students) to become familiar with the basic institutional environment of the Anglo-American law as well as some basic skills of analytical reasoning." Regardless of the accuracy of Su Li’s understanding of “Thinking Like Yaw†in American legal education, isn’t “some of the basic skills of analytical reasoning†a legal method? It does not contain the methodological requirements for students to develop legal thinking. Whether or not the legal person's aforementioned "basic skills" do not equal "legal methods", he said, is still necessary and irreplaceable. "As you can tell from this sentence, Suli did not deny it." The legal person’s professional skills and legal methods exist.This is the premise that we may discuss and reach a consensus.Here we will find a formal logic error of Suli: on the one hand to recognize the legal person needs training in professional skills and methods On the other hand, it also negates the existence of legal thinking. Legal persons with professional methods and no professional thinking are just like the “square of circles.†This is truly an incredible monster. Is the legal approach to behavior rather than thinking, which one have we seen? When professional judges use legal methods to think, are they thinking with hands and feet? We cannot Because the existing scientific methods can't clearly understand human thinking activities, they think that people's thinking does not exist, or that people's thinking can only be studied through behavior, and it cannot be said that people's thinking is behavior. Suli said that the so-called law Thinking, in fact, is just behavior.1 If the legal method is not an important factor of legal thinking, and legal thinking is only behavior, then (1) Sulli says on one hand, “We cannot observe the legal person's thinking or thinking empirically. Cannot observe how their brains or other organs are active at the physical or chemical level. "On the one hand," we only see the actions of legal persons and some of the features or patterns present in these actions." Excerpt from Zhu Wen, Part IX Since we know that we are not a human brain or cognitive scientist, we should respect things that we don't understand, and we should not treat things that we don't see or understand as nonexistent, or say something else. s things.
These methods, techniques, and skills are the hands-on techniques of the legal person. Does the legal person have manual operating techniques and reluctantly say that this can include, for example, how the judge informs the participants of the proceedings, how the judge knocks the law, how to draft and print the judgment, How does the judge of the executive court perform it? However, these are the true and essential manifestations of the judge’s professional activities. Obviously not. What is left of judges other than professional thinking? The remaining “behaviors†are almost negligible with respect to judges’ thinking. Judges are judges, and the so-called “behavior†of judges should have been judged only by the brain. Prosecutors are different, their "behavior"
Including prosecution, supervision and so on. Prosecution is intended to be handed over to judges for judgment, and supervision also includes supervision of judges' judgments. The "acts" of lawyers include defense and agency, including the supervision of judges' thinking. From the perspective of the parties, professional thinking is used to facilitate the completion of judges' accurate thinking and judgment. If lawyers do not think, there is no way to complete their defense and agency work. Therefore, legal persons Thinking forms the main part of all its activities. The first notable feature of a professional (or professional) is that “professionals are involved in intelligence and mental skills, not physical or manual. The English “professional†is often used to “learnedprofession†cultivated through knowledgeâ€. The method is different from the legal method, but the legal thinking exists in the form of methods and methods, and the legal methods more specifically represent the skills of thinking, such as legal interpretation, loophole filling, and the special application of uncertain clauses. And the method of legal reasoning, which is the habit of thinking and the mode of thinking formed by the use of specific professional methods for a long period of time.The legal thinking exists based on legal methods, otherwise the legal person's thinking will not exist.
Su Li acknowledges professional skills and legal methods, but does not recognize the legal person's thinking or legal thinking, which is not consistent with common sense.
Let us take a look at what has been fortunately not negotiated by Suli, which is not listed in terms of logical relations, such as “textual interpretation, dogmatics, ‘words’, and legal reasoningâ€. All legal interpretations are the non-standard titles of legal interpretation. Law dogmatics usually refers to the legal methodology of normative science that developed from European conceptual law or annotated jurisprudence. The word â€œæŠ å—†is obviously a folk saying. If you say something nice, it means that legal people are rigorous about the legal provisions. It is difficult to hear that the legal person is quibbled. "Legal reasoning" is obviously "reasoning in formal legal methods", but it is similar to some legal methods in continental law. It can be seen that the juxtaposition of these four things is completely illogical. It is difficult to understand that Su None of the full texts listed legal methods once, but they have arbitrarily denied the existence of legal thinking. It only shows that Suli did not pay attention to or did not take legal methods seriously, and was also confused with inexplicable prejudice against legal methods.
On the one hand, Sulli acknowledges the existence of legal methods and skills, and on the other hand does not recognize the "legal person's thinking." How he considered this issue made us puzzled. Does he want to say: The so-called "legal person" itself does not exist, but in fact he has bravely stated - "Some people want to establish a community of legal people ... This is simply an impossible task"
(From Zhu Wen's third part). In other words, does Suli think of "rule of law? Well, this is simply an impossible task." Indeed, we humans are afraid of difficulties, but humanity has never stopped overcoming difficulties. If you give up because of things, and give up the pursuit, and turn against all the ideals and beliefs for the difficulties, even if the article is beautiful again, it is also lacking [3] The author used the “legal family†in relevant articles published over a decade ago. "The way of thinking" aims to show that legal person or legal person has a professional thinking method different from other professions (and occupations). The reason for not using "legal method" is because of this (see Sun Xiaoxia, see note above) ).
Scholars should be responsible. Chinese literati have always had the spirit of "iron shoulders and morals, and wonderful articles". In the present society, whether a scholar still has to assume the responsibility of inspiring the people and leading the society. If he is not trying to change the backward reality and strive to pursue the beautiful ideal, he should not only think about admitting reality, negative ideals, and exaggerating difficulties. Demonstrate the rationality of the backward phenomenon. How should that be explained? Zhu Wen's misunderstanding lies in the separation of the legal person's thinking (legal thinking) from the legal profession and its legal methods. For legal people, legal thinking is independent of a particular professional approach. We cannot imagine that one's thinking can be separated from his thinking methods. We also cannot imagine that a legal person has professional thinking without a legal method.
Second, the uniqueness of legal methods determines the independence of legal thinking We first look at the content of legal methods. The legal interpretation of the method of legal dogmatics, the filling of gaps in legal loopholes, and the special application of general terms (concepts) constitute the legal method of continental law systems. The Anglo-American legal system was formed under the tradition of case law, and the legal method was also focused on "legal reasoning."
(Legal reasoning), legal reasoning has become the collective name for the methods applicable to law (jurisprudence) in English and American law. Judging from the perspective of the Anglo-American legal person, European and European styles cannot be construed as "legal people's thinking." The key questions are: Are these specific to the legal person or are commonly used by non-legal professionals? We choose one of the legal methods, combined with a simple "pediatric" case.
The facts of the case: A 3-year-old child and his mother A were in the neighbor's yard. The mother A was talking to the neighbor B. The child was teasing the cock in the yard. Unexpectedly, the left eye was cocked and the court sued the neighbors. B.
The question in this case is: Neighbor B should not be compensated. How much is the loss, we assume that both the legal person and Aunt Muram are familiar with the following two articles: "The General Principles of Civil Law" stipulates in Article 127 that "the animals being raised cause damage to others, the animals The keeper or manager shall bear civil liability. Second, Article 131 of the General Principles of the Civil Law states that "the victim is also at fault for the occurrence of the damage and may reduce the civil liability of the infringer."
This is a very simple case in fact, so that Auntie Murakami will be able to make judgments and draw conclusions, and her conclusions and legal person's judgment will be consistent, but the difference between them is reasoning (judgment). reason). I remember there was a sarcasm of the judge saying "Judges tend to make mistakes on reasons." Indeed, the most important reason for judicial judgment is the reason. The legal proverb cloud "is vague and uncertain is not a convincing reason"
There are indeed sufficient reasons and the conclusions are testable.
Then, how did the legal person make the legal judgment in this case? What is the thinking process? This mainly involves the judgment of two syllogisms.
The first syllogism, based on the provisions of Article 127 of the General Principles of Civil Law, concludes that: B should compensate.
The second judgment is based on the confirmation of the question of whether the child’s mother has neglected the duty of discipline. It was ascertained that the child’s mother had the fact of neglecting the duty of discipline. Then, the application of Article 131 of the General Principles of Civil Law begins. Note that this clause stipulates that "the victim is also at fault for the damage, and can reduce the civil liability of the infringer." In the absence of a lawyer, Aunt Muramori will probably not tolerate the notion of "victim". Because the plain interpretation of the "Victim" text is understood in the normal way, in this case it only refers to the victimized three-year-old child. However, minors do not have any legal faults. The facts tell us that the mother and child are at fault. Can the victim's mother's fault be considered as the fault of the victim? Village Aunt will say yes or no. Without professional training, she could not carry out legal thinking, and she could not answer this question from the legal method. If the aunt is entrusted to serve as an agent of A, she strongly insists that the victim does not include the mother, and that Party B lawyers will refute her. If the mother is entrusted to act as an agent for Party B, she claims that the victim includes a mother. The Party A lawyer will refute her. Aunt simply can not legal thinking in such cases, give conclusions to convince the other party.
At this point, only professional legal people can solve this problem through legal thinking and the use of legal methods. If he does not use legal methods, even professional lawyers will be hesitant here, so the grass-roots judges will often conduct "and muddy" mediation.
The correct and legal person's way of thinking is to include the concept of "victim" in the method of law hermeneutics to subsumere (subsumere), that is, to compare norms (macro premise) and facts (small premise) in facts and norms. The "round trip" between the two
(Engers "brows and turns between the premise and the facts of life") or shuttle back and forth (Wang Zejian) or "look and feel."
In the process of comparison (contrast) with the factual situation, "- we can easily find this sentence in the works of civil law, but this is also the consensus of the Anglo-American law professor. [15] An Anglo-American judge has also taken the case. It is impossible to avoid such "from the rules to the facts, and then from the facts to the rules" to "look and look." Su Li can not say that this "look left and right" is behavior or action, Larenz pointed out that this kind of easy misunderstanding He said, “We cannot imagine the 'reflection between the facts of the case and the 'reflection of the eyes' between the laws and regulations. Imagine: Only the change of the eyes of judges is a kind of ideological process. Here, the 'fact of unprocessed cases' gradually It is translated into the final (as stated) case facts, and the (unprocessed) normative provision is also transformed into a canonical form that is sufficiently specific and appropriate to judge the facts of the case.†1H In the second syllogism of the rooster case, why can I The concept of the "victim" child being kidnapped) was extended to his mother. Although such a conclusion is obvious, it is explained to the legal person. It is a very simple “pediatricsâ€, but it must be pointed out here to expand the explanation (some people think it is the reason for “certain explanationâ€: treat the mother and the underage child in an integrated manner, and the victim “expands†to the victim. "One party" therefore expands the "negligence of the guardian of the minor victim" into the concept of the "victim." The basis is that the negligence of the legislation is intended to achieve a certain balance between the injuring party and the victim. The possibility of damaging the mother’s three-year-old child should be foreseen but neglected.In 1991, the Supreme People’s Court made an expanded explanation in the judicial interpretation of a similar case, but stated that “Zhao†did not explain the legal method. The (victim) mother's mother has no proper care of Zhao and is also at fault. She should reduce the civil liability of Yin (the infringer). The author believes that many judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court have the legal person's thinking and the conclusion is correct, but often [4] (German) Radbruch: "A Collection of Legal Wisdom", translated by Shu Guozhen, China Legal Publishing House, 2001, p. 137. U.S.) Rugello Dousseau: The Logic of Law, Translated by Tang Xinwei, United Bay Publishing House, Page 49.[6] (German) Karl Larenz: Law Methodology, translated by Chen Aiyu, Commercial Press, 2004 Edition , pp. 162 (7) Analysis of the reasons for the expansionary interpretation of the case, see Liang Huixing, “Methods of the Judgmentâ€, Law Press 2003, page 103. [8] How the Supreme People’s Court Appeals to the Case of Zhao Zheng and Yin Fahui Personal Injury Compensation Reply to Legal Policy."
It is not appropriate to justify the legal method. At this point, Aunt Muramatsu will also say "I can guess this conclusion." The crux of the problem lies in the fact that outsiders make this kind of speculation and usually cannot give a methodological reason. Some people even think that this method is too simple, almost taking off pants and farting - this is an overkill. In more complex cases, there will be more complicated legal methods (justifications). What's more, the lawsuits have their opposites. How do you convince the two sides that there are conflicts of interest? There is no legal way to do it.
From the above cases, we can generally know that the reason why we say that the legal method is a special career method: it is because most of the legal concepts that make up the basic material and objects of the legal person's thinking, although derived from the concept of daily life, are all legislated. The members of the legal profession and members of the legal profession have given special legal meanings, such as "residential residences," and in the constitutional interpretation studies also include the hotel where they live, the dormitory for students to study, and the tent for travel. For example, “infringement of residential rights†refers not only to the direct intrusion into the physical space inside a dwelling. In the sense of law interpretation, it may also include peeping directly or indirectly through a certain device outside the dwelling, or eavesdropping on the general private life inside the dwelling. Scenarios and other behaviors. As a layman, he does not know how to solve it through legal thinking and methods. Second, it is because these legal methods are all through the clinical practice of professional legal persons, and are summed up by legal scholars, rather than outsiders can obtain legal thinking. Third, because the methods and types of their methods are not available to the general public, or some methods are simply inconsistent with the public's way of thinking, and even John Qmncy Adams believes that "legal logic is artificial. The reasoning system is only used in courts and is useless on other occasions." 〔0〕Although it is too exaggerated, but it is quite enlightening. Fourth, because most of the methods in legal methodology are not available in other social sciences. Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert stated that the declarative sentence of the premise in legal reasoning must be derived from certain authority (such as constitutional provisions, statute law or case law), which is different from the reasoning in daily life. We cannot start from this proposition simply because we have always believed that a certain proposition is true. Even the “sociological interpretation†in legal interpretation is only a legal perspective that uses sociology to extend the horizon from rules to social facts (instead of really having any sociological methods to guide legal methods). Creative. Fifth, because it is difficult to master without training or professional practice.
In terms of the “method of claim†in the civil law methodology, it has the merits of practical needs, economy, and the appropriateness of the content of the solution. ii. Pidge, Sakamoto, China Taiwan, and civil law circles in mainland China. Civil judicial practice is widely used.
However, the "right to claim method" is not something that can be grasped in the days and months of the year. Even the legal teachers of Keban may not be able to grasp and apply it quickly. It requires continuous training. Without learning and mastering a certain method, it is difficult to develop a legal person's thinking, and it is hard to say that he is a qualified legal person. Of course, one person spent four years in a low-level law school for four years of legal education, and more or less will learn the legal methods. Even if it is low, it also has some legal thinking. If he goes to work in a law firm or a court, practice will allow him to progressively strengthen his awareness of legal methods and strengthen his legal thinking skills.
Or, when a person has not gone through legal training and training, such as reinventing the military to enter the court, he will also acquire certain legal thinking and legal methods in the process of learning by doing. "Our law enforcers at this stage, whether they are judicial officers or administrative officials, do not suffer from their inability to be free, for fear that they do not know science or their rigid logic, lest they have no concept." [3] Mr. Wang Boqi's remarks also apply to today's laws in mainland China.
〔0〕Referring to Yadi Se, see previous note [14], page 48. [2] Wang Zejian: “Examples of Legal Thinking and Civil Lawâ€, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2001, p. 20. [3] Wang Boqi: On Conceptual Jurisprudence "Social Science Forum" July 1960.
Whether or not the legal person has a legal thinking that is independent of the general public, the answer is affirmative, which is determined by the uniqueness of the legal method. The relationship between legal thinking and legal methods is inseparable, what kind of method, what kind of thinking. We believe that we cannot think of “thinking about the law†as the characteristics of the legal person's thinking. This is recognized by Suli. However, he believes that the author's generalization of the legal person's way of thinking, characteristics, or habits is not only ambiguous, but more importantly, it is difficult to set up experience; the establishment of the legal person is not unique to the legal person, nor is it unique. Appropriately summarized." I am very happy to see that Su Li recognizes that the legal person's thinking has aspects that the writer has not adequately summarized. The author hereby sincerely consults Suli and asks the author to supplement the legal person's unique characteristics of thinking. Su Li's criticism of the author's six-point summary of the habit of legal thinking, taking into account the length of this article, the author is not here to make a detailed response. As mentioned earlier, although legal persons have differences in their institutional roles, there are also a number of differences in thinking. For example, the “objective†obligations of prosecutors are different from the “neutral†obligations of judges, and they are different from the “valence†obligations of lawyers. Therefore, their thinking may have certain differences, but this is not enough to constitute a negation of the more common thinking habits and characteristics of legal people.
Zhu Wen's fifth part dismisses the existence of legal thinking as "each legal person has its own institutional role, assumes specific institutional responsibilities" and "different judges also have differences in thinking." How to look at this issue, we certainly know that the legal person has a different division of roles and responsibilities. We also recognize that the institutional roles of judges, prosecutors and lawyers determine that there are some differences in their thinking, but their basic thinking habits and characteristics are still caused by And shared. Su Li also used the "flag burning case"
As an example, the prosecutor and the lawyer "have, to a considerable extent, shared the mode of thinking or characteristic that judgement precedes the argument and the conclusion precedes the reason." Here, it is actually very simple - Suli intentionally or unintentionally confuses the pre-judgment of the prosecutor (or lawyer) with the procedural stage they are in throughout the proceedings. The thinking of the prosecutor or the lawyer's respective pre-judgment (prosecution or defense) is only the middle, but not all, of the proceedings. In terms of the thinking they have completed in their respective areas of work, they are arguments prior to judgments and reasons before conclusions. The prosecutor who burned the flag was also able to draw his conclusions through evidence analysis, fact judgments, and conceptual analysis and reasoning methods. Although the "initial judgment" will also largely guide lawyers or prosecutors, the "initial judgment" is only "unconsciously" as Suli said. It still cannot save his mind and effort - after all, the evidence proves that And conceptual analysis is the homework that legal people can't save. To put it plainly, even if you really have a conclusion, you must be honest and look at the dead horse to do every necessary homework. This is the requirement of the legal method for thinking. This is the requirement of the system for legal thinking.
For the trial of the entire case, the work of the prosecutor and the lawyer became an integral part of the trial procedure of the judge and became a chain in the program as a whole. It became a form of argumentation and reasoning for judges to make the result of thinking judgments, prompting judges to finally draw conclusions. Substantive judgments. When the prosecutor or the lawyer's pre-judgment at the time of handling the case was brought into the litigation process as a whole, both of them were in compliance with procedural ethics, which was supported by the system and ethics in the judicial ethics of various countries. 2 Why do we say that uniform training in Coban is very important, precisely because the methods in Coban's training can be recognized by the community more generally and form consensus in the community. The role of judges, prosecutors, and lawyers in the tripartite, if even basic legal concepts, legal methods, and ways of thinking are all different, then how do they say a piece of it? The reason why all countries have unified the judicial examination is to let three people The concepts, methods, and thinking are unified and become a community. Many countries have the system of selecting judges from lawyers because their concepts, methods, and thinking are unified. If Suli’s views can be established[4] Law students sometimes have doubts: prosecutors prosecute before the judge has decided, and this kind of thinking of culpability without trial will violate the principle of presumption of innocence.上，这个问题如果从检察官伦ç†ä¸Šæ¥çœ‹ï¼ˆå¦‚“客观义务â€æˆ–“准å¸æ³•å®˜â€ï¼Œå°±èƒ½è¿Žåˆƒè€Œè§£äº†ï¼ˆå‚è§ï¼ˆæ—¥ï¼‰æ£®é™…康å‹ï¼šã€Šå¸æ³•ä¼¦ç†ã€‹ï¼ŒäºŽæ™“çªã€æ²ˆå†›è¯‘，商务å°ä¹¦é¦†2010年版，页176）。
è¯ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆï¼Œå›½å®¶åº”当å–消å„大å¦çš„法å¦é™¢ï¼Œæ³•å¾‹äººæ‰çš„培养应该分别交由国家法官å¦é™¢ã€å›½å®¶æ£€å¯Ÿå®˜å¦é™¢å’Œå›½å®¶å¾‹å¸ˆå¦é™¢æ¥è¿›è¡Œï¼›å›½å®¶è¿˜åº”当å–消å¸æ³•ç»Ÿä¸€è€ƒè¯•ï¼Œå›žåˆ°2 001年以å‰çš„æ³•å®˜èµ„æ ¼è€ƒè¯•ã€æ£€å¯Ÿå®˜èµ„æ ¼è€ƒè¯•å’Œå¾‹å¸ˆèµ„æ ¼è€ƒè¯•ã€‚è‹åŠ›æ€»æ˜¯ä¸¾ä¾‹è¯´æ˜Žè°è°è°éžç§‘ç出身也干得很好，这个问题涉åŠæ³•å¾‹å·¥ä½œè€…的专业化在实践ä¸çš„评估，情况比较å¤æ‚，容åŽæ–‡å†ä½œé˜è¿°ã€‚
法律方法之所以被称为“法律方法论â€ï¼Œæ˜¯å› 为它在法律人的ä¸æ‡ˆåŠªåŠ›ä¹‹ä¸ã€åœ¨ä¸æ–å‘展进化ä¸è¢«ç²¾ç»†åŒ–ã€ä½“系化了，其内部å˜åœ¨ç»†è…»ç”šè‡³å¤æ‚的技能和方法。这些都是法律人的æ€ç»´ï¼Œé€šè¿‡æ³•å¦å®¶å’Œæ³•å¾‹äººçš„å…±åŒåŠªåŠ›æ¥æ€»ç»“ã€æ¢³ç†å’Œå½’纳出套相对åˆç†çš„法律æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•ï¼Œå°±å«æ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•ã€‚比如德国民法å¦å®¶å¡å°”拉伦茨的《法å¦æ–¹æ³•è®ºã€‹ä½œä¸ºæ³•ç§‘ç”Ÿçš„æ•™ç§‘ä¹¦ï¼Œé€šç¯‡å°±æ˜¯è®²æ³•å¾‹äººè¯¥æ€Žæ ·æ€ç»´çš„方法。å¡å°”æ©å‰æ–¯çš„《法律æ€ç»´å¯¼è®ºã€‹ï¼Œä»Žå¤´åˆ°å°¾å°±æ˜¯è®²æ³•å¾‹è§„范的æ„义和结构ã€ä»Žæ³•å¾‹è§„范ä¸èŽ·å–具体的法律判æ–（推论）ã€ä»Žæ³•å¾‹è§„范ä¸èŽ·å–抽象的判æ–（解释）ã€æ³•å¾‹è€…法（ä¸ç¡®å®šæ¦‚念ã€ä¸€èˆ¬æ¡æ¬¾çš„适用）ç‰ã€‚〔6〕担任过法官的长期从事法律教å¦çš„王泽鉴教授著有《法律æ€ç»´ä¸Žæ°‘法实例》，其ä¸ç¬¬ä¸€ç« 就强调一个人ç»ç”±å¦ä¹ 法律，通常å¯ä»¥èŽ·å¾—法律知识ã€æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´å’Œè§£å†³äº‰è®®è¿™ä¸‰ç§èƒ½åŠ›ã€‚〔7〕黄茂è£çš„《法å¦æ–¹æ³•ä¸ŽçŽ°ä»£æ°‘法》从法律概念ã€æ³•å¾‹è§„定的逻辑结构ã€æ³•å¾‹è§£é‡Šã€æ³•å¾‹æ¼æ´žåŠå…¶è¡¥å……，到法律体系的方法ç‰ï¼Œéƒ½æ˜¯å…³äºŽæ³•å¾‹äººçš„法律æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•çš„论述。日本在明治维新åŽç…§æ¬äº†å¾·å›½æ°‘法å¦ï¼Œå…¶æ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•è®ºä¹Ÿä¸»è¦é›†ä¸åœ¨æ°‘法解释å¦ã€‚笔者列举这些，是为了说明在有æˆæ–‡æ³•ä¼ 统的大陆法系国家，法律方法是多么的é‡è¦å’Œæ™®åŠã€‚å› æ¤ï¼Œå¯¹äºŽä¸å›½è¿™æ ·çš„有æˆæ–‡æ³•ä¼ 统的国家，有必è¦å»ºè®®æ‰€æœ‰çš„法å¦é™¢éƒ½å¼€è®¾æ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•è¯¾ï¼Œæˆ–è€…æ‰€æœ‰éƒ¨é—¨æ³•æ•™å¸ˆéƒ½åœ¨è¯¾å ‚ä¸Šèƒ½å¤Ÿè¿›è¡Œæ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•çš„ä¼ æŽˆã€‚
至于英美法律人æ€ç»´ï¼Œç¨åŽæˆ‘们å†çœ‹çœ‹å…¶ç‰¹ç‚¹ï¼Œçœ‹çœ‹é‚£ç§ä¸ä¾èµ–于独特的法律方法和法律æ€ç»´æ¥åŠžæ¡ˆçš„神è¯æ˜¯å¦‚ä½•ç ´ç的。
三ã€æ³•ç›²æ€è€ƒæ³•å¾‹åœ¨ä½•ç§æ„义上ä¸æ˜¯æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´ï¼Œæ£å¦‚è‹åŠ›å·²æ³¨æ„到的，笔者直是区分“法律æ€ç»´â€ä¸Žâ€œæ€è€ƒæ³•å¾‹â€çš„。也就是说，外行人对法律的æ€è€ƒï¼Œä¸ç‰äºŽæˆ‘们所谓的“法律æ€ç»´â€ã€‚è‹åŠ›è¯´ï¼Œâ€œä¸ªåŸºæœ¬çš„问题是，并ä¸æ˜¯å¦äº†æ³•å¾‹å°±å®šæ‡‚法律，而没å¦çš„就一定ä¸æ‡‚法律，更ä¸è¯´éµå®ˆæ³•å¾‹äº†çŠ¯äººå¯¹æ³•å¾‹çš„å¹³å‡ç†Ÿæ‚‰ç¨‹åº¦æ€»æ˜¯é«˜äºŽå¤§è¡—ä¸Šçš„ç”·ç”·å¥³å¥³ï¼›å› æ¤ï¼Œæ‰€è°“'æ— è§†'其实åªæ˜¯æˆ‘们说惯了一个修辞。法盲从æ¥ä¸æ‹’ç»è§„则或规范，从ä¸å¦è®¤åˆ¶åº¦å’Œè§„则对人有约æŸåŠ›â€ï¼ˆæ‘˜è‡ªæœ±æ–‡ç¬¬å…部分）。其实è‹åŠ›å·æ¢æ¦‚念地把“法盲也守法â€çš„æ™®é现象ç†è§£ä¸ºâ€œæ³•ç›²ä¹Ÿå…·æœ‰æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´â€ã€‚
〔8〕黄茂è£ï¼šæ³•å¦æ–¹æ³•ä¸ŽçŽ°ä»£æ°‘法》，åˆæ¹¾å¤§å¦æ³•å¾‹ç³»æ³•å¦ä¸›ä¹¦ç¼–辑委员会2006年版。
法律人与行外人士的æ€ç»´åŒºåˆ«å¹¶ä¸åœ¨äºŽé‡è§†è§„åˆ™è¿˜æ˜¯æ— è§†è§„åˆ™ï¼Œè€Œåœ¨äºŽæ˜¯å¦æ‡‚å¾—è¿ç”¨å¦‚解释ã€æŽ¨ç†ã€æ¼æ´žè¡¥å……ã€æ³•å¾‹è®ºè¯ç‰å…³äºŽè§„则的专业技术。外行人尊é‡å’Œéµå®ˆæ³•å¾‹ï¼Œä¸Žæ³•å¾‹äººå¯¹è§„则的尊é‡ä¸Žè®¤è¯†æ€ç»´ä¹ 惯是ä¸èƒ½åˆ’ç‰å·çš„。事实上，行外人常常在规则é¢å‰è¡¨çŽ°å‡ºå¾ˆå¤–è¡Œçš„ä¹ æƒ¯ã€‚ç©¶å…¶åŽŸå› ï¼Œå¤šåŠæ˜¯å› 为没有专业的æ€ç»´ä¹ 惯和技术。
我们相信行外人会éµå®ˆè§„则ã€å°Šé‡æ³•å¾‹ï¼Œä½†ä¸æ˜¯å› 为他们具有法律人的æ€ç»´ã€‚法盲éµå®ˆæ³•å¾‹ã€å°Šé‡è§„则，å¯èƒ½æ˜¯å› 为社会压力ã€æ³•å¾‹çš„æƒå¨æ€§ã€é“å¾·çš„åŽŸå› ï¼Œæˆ–è€…å› ä¸ºå°Šé‡ä¹ æƒ¯ï¼Œæˆ–è€…å› ä¸ºæ€•å—惩罚ç‰ï¼Œã€”9ã€•æˆ–è€…å› è‡ªèº«åˆ©ç›Šçš„éœ€è¦ã€‚还å¯èƒ½æ˜¯å› 为外行人与法律人都拥有“æ£ä¹‰æ„Ÿâ€ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯æˆ‘ä»¬å¿…é¡»æ ¹æ®ç›¸å¯¹ç«‹çš„æ ‡å‡†æ¥è¡¡é‡â€œå¤–行的æ£ä¹‰æ„Ÿâ€å’Œâ€œæ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ£ä¹‰æ„Ÿâ€ã€‚法律人的æ£ä¹‰æ„Ÿçš„æ ‡å‡†åœ¨äºŽâ€œä»–å®¹å¿åˆ¶å®šæ³•ä¹‹ä¸æ£ä¹‰çš„困难程åºâ€ï¼Œå¤–行人的æ£ä¹‰æ„Ÿçš„æ ‡å‡†åœ¨äºŽâ€œä»–ç©¶ç«Ÿæ˜¯å¦èƒ½å¤Ÿå®¹å¿å¤„于法的安定性利益ä¸åˆ¶å®šæ³•çš„ä¸æ£ä¹‰â€ã€‚
è‹åŠ›çš„å—é‡Œè¡Œé—´æš´éœ²äº†ä¸€ä¸ªæŠ€æœ¯è½¯è‚‹ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯è‡ªå·±å¡‘é€ äº†ä¸€ä¸ªå‡è€™åæ¥æ‰“。他把美国的ä¾æ³•è¡Œäº‹ä¹Ÿæˆäº†æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´ï¼Œæ³•å¾‹æ•™ä¹‰å¦å°±æˆäº†â€œæ»å—‘æ¡æ–‡â€ã€‚这尤其集ä¸åœ°è¡¨çŽ°åœ¨æœ±æ–‡ç¬¬å部分。他说“必须注æ„，在法律人é¢å¯¹çš„事务ä¸ï¼ŒçœŸæœ‰æ™ºåŠ›æŒ‘战的，真需è¦æ³•å¾‹äººåŽ»æ€è€ƒè€Œä¸åªæ˜¯æœºæ¢°æ¼”绎适用规则的，定是那些仅按法律程å¼æˆ–定å¼æ— 法完æˆï¼Œæˆ–å³ä¾¿å¯ä»¥å®Œæˆä½†å½“事人甚或法律人自己也ä¸æ»¡æ„ç”šè‡³æ— æ³•æŽ¥å—çš„äº‹åŠ¡ï¼Œå› æ¤å½“事人或客户或法律人自己，有时甚至真å¯èƒ½æ˜¯æ•´ä¸ªç¤¾ä¼šï¼Œéƒ½å¸Œæœ›æœ‰æ‰€å˜åŒ–ã€å‘展或é™åˆ¶çš„事务。仅仅法律人的æ€è€ƒæœ¬èº«æ— æ³•ç¡®å®šè¿™äº›ç›®æ ‡å’Œå‰è¿›æ–¹å‘，相ååªæœ‰å…ˆå®šä¸‹äº†ç›®æ ‡å’Œæ–¹å‘åŽæ‰å¯èƒ½å±•å¼€æ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ€è€ƒï¼Œä¸ä½†æ˜¯ç ”究在法律文å—层é¢çš„å¯å¦ï¼Œè€Œä¸”è¦ç ”究å¯èƒ½çš„åŽæžœï¼Œæœ‰å“ªäº›æ³•å¾‹çš„ã€æ”¿æ²»çš„ã€ç¤¾ä¼šçš„ã€ç»æµŽçš„æˆ–ä»…ä»…æ˜¯ä¹ æƒ¯çš„åˆ¶çº¦æ¡ä»¶ï¼Œè¯¥å¦‚何在法律上以åŠä»¥å…¶ä»–æ–¹å¼å¯¹å¾…â€•â€•æ— è®ºæ˜¯æ”¹å˜ã€å°Šé‡æˆ–是ä¸ç†ç¬â€•â€•è¿™äº›åˆ¶çº¦ã€‚â€ï¼ˆæ‘˜è‡ªæœ±æ–‡ç¬¬å部分）“è¦å¢žå¼ºæ³•å¾‹äººçš„è¿™ç§èƒ½åŠ›ï¼Œå°±å¿…须超越所谓的'法律人æ€ç»´'或者æ¢ä¸€ç§è¯´æ³•ï¼Œå°±å¿…须在ç»éªŒå±‚é¢ä¸Šä¸°å¯Œæ³•å¾‹äººæ€ç»´çš„概念â€ï¼ˆæ‘˜è‡ªç¬¬å部分）。必须è¦è®©æ³•å¦é™¢æ¯•ä¸šç”Ÿâ€œåœ¨é‡åˆ°æ–°é—®é¢˜ï¼Œä¸”æ— æ³•ä»Žæ³•å¾‹ä¸æ‰¾åˆ°çŽ°æˆç”案之际，知é“自己应当和å¯èƒ½ä»Žå“ªäº›åœ°æ–¹èŽ·å¾—帮助，并且在教å¦å†…容上è¦ç»“åˆéƒ¨é—¨æ³•çš„æ³•å¾‹å®žè·µï¼Œå¢žåŠ è¿™ç±»å†…å®¹â€æ‘˜è‡ªç¬¬å部分）。
è‹åŠ›æ‰€è¡¨è¿°çš„这些没有法律规定的情形，æ°æ°æ˜¯å¸æ³•ä¸çš„特殊情形，而ä¸æ˜¯å¸¸è§„情形。对这些特殊情形，ä¸æ£æ˜¯æ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•è®ºæ‰€è®²çš„“法有规定而ä¸æ˜Žâ€ã€â€œæ³•æ— 明文规定â€ä»¥åŠâ€œæ³•ä¸ç¡®å®šâ€
这三ç§æƒ…å½¢å—，æ£å¥½æœ‰ä¸‰ç§ä¸»è¦çš„方法æ¥è§£å†³è¿™äº›æƒ…形，å³æ³•å¾‹è§£é‡Šã€æ³•å¾‹æ¼æ´žå¡«è¡¥å’Œç‰¹æ®Šé€‚用方法。在没有法教义å¦çš„英美法上，这些情形的解决也ä¸æ˜¯æ²¡æœ‰æ–¹æ³•å’Œæ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´çš„，而是用从å‰é¢æ‘˜å¼•çš„段è½æ¥çœ‹ï¼Œè‹åŠ›ä¼¼ä¹ŽæŠŠæ³•å¾‹äººæ€ç»´æˆ–法教义å¦ç‰åŒäºŽä¸ä¸–纪æ„大利的注释〔9ã€•å¼ æ–‡æ˜¾ï¼šã€ŠäºŒå世纪西方法哲å¦æ€æ½®ç ”究》，法律出版社1996年版，页447è‹åŠ›åœ¨æ–‡ä¸ä¾‹ä¸¾äº†å…¬æ°‘为符åˆè´æˆ¿æ¡ä»¶è€Œå‡ç¦»å©šï¼Œå…¶å®žå°±æ˜¯å› 为è´æˆ¿è€…出于个人利益的考虑，æ¥åˆ†æžæ³•å¾‹ã€åœ¨è§„则范围内穷尽自己的æƒåˆ©ï¼Œè€Œå¹¶ä¸æ˜¯å› 为他掌æ¡äº†æ³•å¾‹äººçš„法律æ€ç»´å’Œæ–¹æ³•ã€‚
法å¦ã€‚è‹åŠ›ç”šè‡³æŠŠå®ƒç†è§£æˆåªæ˜¯ä¸Šä¸–纪80年代ä¸å›½æ³•å¦é™¢æ•™å¦ä¸çš„æ¡æ–‡æ³¨é‡Šã€‚殊ä¸çŸ¥ï¼Œæ³•å¾‹æ•™ä¹‰å¦å·²ç»è¿‡æ•°ç™¾å¹´æ¼”å˜å‘展，æˆä¸ºæˆæ–‡æ³•å›½å®¶å’Œåœ°åŒºæ³•å¾‹äººçš„看家本领。用法教义å¦æ–¹æ³•æ˜¯ç»å¤§å¤šæ•°æƒ…况下的通例，用社会å¦æ–¹æ³•æ‰æ˜¯æ³•å®˜ç‰¹æ®Šæƒ…况下的例外。“法教义å¦ç¡®å®šæ³•å¦çš„基质和å¦é—®æ–¹å¼â€ï¼Œâ€œæ²¡æœ‰æ³•æ•™ä¹‰å¦æŒ‡å¯¼çš„法律实践是混乱的â€ï¼Œæ³•æ•™ä¹‰å¦åœ¨åŠŸèƒ½ä¸Šâ€œå¯ä»¥è¿ç”¨ä½“系化论è¯æ£€éªŒæ³•å¾‹è§„范的解释，规范与事实的涵摄，以åŠå¸æ³•è£åˆ¤çš„ç†ç”±è¯´æ˜Žæ˜¯å¦å…·æœ‰é€»è¾‘上的一致性â€ï¼Œâ€œæ³•æ•™ä¹‰å¦çš„谦抑æ°å¥½è¡¨æ˜Žå®¡æ…Žçš„è¦æ±‚人们在框é™å’Œè§„准之内观察和æ€è€ƒï¼Œå¯¹äºŽæ¡†é™å’Œè§„准之外的问题，则交由其他å¦é—®åŽ»è§£å†³â€ã€‚
行外人士尊é‡æˆ–éµå®ˆæ³•å¾‹ä¸ç‰äºŽæ˜¯æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´ï¼Œæ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´æ˜¯å¦ä¹ 法律专业者通过认真å¦ä¹ 领会ã€å®žè·µè®ç»ƒæ³•å¾‹çŸ¥è¯†å’Œæ–¹æ³•ï¼Œç‰¹åˆ«æ˜¯ä»Žéƒ¨é—¨æ³•çŸ¥è¯†å’Œæ–¹æ³•çš„å¦ä¹ è®ç»ƒä¸èŽ·å¾—çš„èŒä¸šæ€ç»´ã€‚
有时，为什么出现法律人æ€ç»´ä¸Žå¤–行人æ€ç»´æœ‰ç›¸åŒä¹‹å¤„æˆ–è¢«ç›¸äº’æ··æ·†å‘¢ï¼Œå› ä¸ºä¸¤è€…ç¡®å®žæœ‰ç›¸åŒæˆ–相通之处：两者相åŒä¹‹å¤„在于他们对规则的ç†è§£å’Œå¯¹æ£ä¹‰çš„ç†è§£æœ‰äº¤å‰ç‚¹ã€‚ä¸¤è€…ç›¸é€šæ˜¯å› ä¸ºæ³•å¾‹äººæ€ç»´ä¸çš„特殊æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•çš„最终目的就在于促æˆåˆä¹Žå¤§å¤šæ•°äººçš„目的，å³æ³•å¾‹äººä¸Žå¤–行人追求所谓法的“åˆç›®çš„性â€æ˜¯ä¸€è‡´çš„。〔3〕法律人与行外人æ€ç»´çš„区别ä¸åœ¨äºŽä¼šä¸ä¼šä¾æ³•è¡Œäº‹ã€‚如果说外行人ä¾æ³•è¡Œäº‹ä¹Ÿæ˜¯æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´çš„è¯ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆåœ¨æ²¡æœ‰æ³•å¾‹çš„å‰æ下，他们还能够ä¾â€œæ³•â€å—，ä¾ä»€ä¹ˆâ€œæ³•â€è¡Œäº‹å‘¢ï¼ŒçŽ°åœ¨æˆ‘们åšä¸€ä¸ªå¾ˆç®€å•çš„实验，我们å‡å®šä¸€ä¸ªäº‹æ¡ˆæ£åœ¨è¢«è®¨è®ºä¸ï¼ŒåŒæ—¶å®ƒæ˜¯åœ¨æ³•å¾‹ä¸Šæ— æ˜Žæ–‡è§„å®šçš„ã€‚åœ¨è¿™æ ·æ‰€è¯´çš„è¿™ä¸ªçŽ°è±¡ã€‚
æŸå¤§å¦æ ¡é•¿æŽ¥åˆ°ä¸¾æŠ¥è¯´æŸç¡•å£«æ¯•ä¸šç”Ÿåœ¨å¤§å¦æœŸé—´ç»å¸¸æ‰“架，é“å¾·è´¥å，è¦æ±‚æ ¡é•¿æ’¤é”€å·²æŽˆäºˆè¯¥ç”Ÿçš„ç¡•å£«å¦ä½ã€‚å¦ä½å§”å‘˜ä¼šä¸Šçš„å¤šæ•°å§”å‘˜è®¤ä¸ºè¿™æ ·çš„å¦ç”Ÿæ€Žä¹ˆå¯ä»¥è®©ä»–毕业，更难容å¿çš„是还授予其硕士å¦ä½ã€‚于是气乎乎地准备投票æ¥æ’¤é”€å…¶å¦ä½ã€‚è¿™é‡Œï¼Œä¸¥æ ¼æ¥è¯´åŒæ ·æ²¡æœ‰æ³•å¾‹å¯ä¾ï¼Œå¯¹äºŽæ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ€ç»´æ¥è®²ï¼Œæ¶‰åŠä¸¤ä¸ªæ³•æ— 明文规定的问题是打架是剥夺其获得å¦ä½æƒåˆ©çš„ç†ç”±å—，行外人（å¦ä½å§”员会里é¢ä¸ä¹è‘—å院士和科å¦å®¶ï¼‰é€šå¸¸ä¼šæƒ³å½“然地考虑一æ¡ç†ç”±â€•â€•æˆ‘ä»¬æ˜¯æœ‰ä¸¥æ ¼æ ¡é£Žä¼ ç»Ÿçš„å¤§å¦ï¼Œå¯¹ä¸€ä¸ªäººå“这么差的å¦ç”Ÿï¼Œæ€Žä¹ˆå¯ä»¥æŽˆäºˆç¡•å£«å¦ä½å‘¢ï¼Œå¯æ˜¯ä»–们并ä¸ä¼šä»Žæ³•å¾‹å…³ç³»ä¸ŠåŽ»åŒºåˆ†ï¼Œæ¯•ä¸šè¯ä¹¦ä¸Žå¦ä½è¯ä¹¦æ˜¯ä¸¤ä¸ªå…·æœ‰ä¸åŒæ³•å¾‹æ€§è´¨çš„东西。
ä½ å¯ä»¥å› 其打架情节严é‡è€Œä¸äºˆé¢å‘毕业è¯ä¹¦ï¼Œä½†ä¸èƒ½å› 其打架情节严é‡è€Œæ’¤é”€å…¶ç¡•å£«å¦ä½è¯ä¹¦ã€‚二是撤销已授予的å¦ä½ï¼Œæ˜¯ä¸ªâ€œè¡Œæ”¿æ³•å¾‹è¡Œä¸ºâ€ï¼Œã€”《作出对行政相对人ä¸åˆ©çš„处分，需è¦æœ‰å……分的举è¯ã€‚åŒæ—¶ï¼Œç»å¸¸æ‰“架一定构æˆâ€œé“å¾·è´¥åâ€å—，如果真的构æˆâ€œé“å¾·è´¥åâ€ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆä¸¾è¯å’Œè®ºè¯ç”±è°è´Ÿè´£ï¼ŒçœŸæž„æˆé“å¾·è´¥å，是ä¸æ˜¯æˆä¸ºæ’¤é”€å¦ä½è¯ä¹¦çš„ç†ç”±ï¼Œæ˜¾ç„¶ï¼Œä½œå‡ºæ’¤é”€å†³å®šçš„æ ¡æ–¹åˆ°äº†è¡Œæ”¿è¯‰è®¼ç¨‹åºä¸ï¼Œå¿…须负举è¯è´£ä»»ï¼Œæ²¡æœ‰è¯æ®å’Œè´¨è¯æ˜¯ä¸èƒ½ä½œå‡ºå¯¹ä»–人ä¸åˆ©å†³å®šçš„。å¯æ˜¯å§”å‘˜ä»¬å¹¶æ²¡æœ‰è¿™æ ·è€ƒè™‘ï¼Œä»¥ä¸ºé€šè¿‡å°‘æ•°æœä»Žå¤šæ•°çš„票决，就å¯ä»¥æˆä¸ºæ’¤é”€å¦ä½çš„ç†ç”±ã€‚
〔2〕舒国滢：法哲å¦æ·±æ€å½•ã€‹ï¼ŒåŒ—京大å¦å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾2010年版，页37〔3〕拉德布é²èµ«è®¤ä¸ºâ€œåˆç›®çš„性â€æ³•å¾‹äººä¸Žå¤–行人一致的，而法的安定性与法的æ£ä¹‰å´æ˜¯æ³•å¾‹äººä¸Žå¤–行人有ä¸åŒçš„（å‚è§æ‹‰å¾·å¸ƒé²èµ«ï¼Œè§å‰æ³¨ã€”2〕，页102）。
按è‹åŠ›çš„说法，这æ£æ˜¯â€œé‡åˆ°æ–°é—®é¢˜â€ã€â€œæ— 法从法律ä¸æ‰¾åˆ°çŽ°æˆç”案之际â€ï¼Œè¡Œå¤–人怎么处ç†å‘¢ï¼Œå¦‚果是行外人，知é“该“从哪些地方æ¥èŽ·å¾—帮助â€å—，在没有法律法规ä¾æ®çš„情况下，法律人的æ€ç»´ä»ç„¶ä¼šä½¿ä»–们质疑“少数æœä»Žå¤šæ•°çš„票决â€èƒ½å¦æˆä¸ºæ’¤é”€å¦ä½çš„ç†ç”±ï¼Œæ¤å¤„产生了个æ£å½“程åºçš„问题，由è°æ¥å®Œæˆä¸ªä¸¾è¯å’Œè´¨è¯çš„程åºå‘¢ï¼Œåˆä¹Žæ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´ä¹ 惯或法律æ€ç»´å¸¸ç†çš„åšæ³•æ˜¯ï¼šç”±å¦ä½å§”员会指定或æˆç«‹ä¸€ä¸ªè°ƒæŸ¥å°ç»„æ¥è´Ÿè´£è¯æ®æ”¶é›†ã€å®¡æŸ¥ã€è´¨è¯çš„程åºï¼Œæœ€åŽå°±æ˜¯å¦æœ‰æ‰“架的事实ã€æ˜¯å¦é“å¾·è´¥å以åŠæ˜¯å¦æž„æˆæ’¤é”€å¦ä½çš„ç†ç”±ï¼Œä½œå‡ºä¸ªåˆ¤æ–结论，å†æ交给å¦ä½å§”员会投票。请问，除了法律æ€ç»´ä¹‹å¤–，哪门社会科å¦çŸ¥è¯†ä¼šå‘Šè¯‰é¢å¯¹è¿™æ ·çš„é—®é¢˜ä½ è¯¥æ€Žä¹ˆåšï¼Œå¤šæ•°å¦ä½å§”å‘˜ä»¬é‚£æ ·çš„æ€ç»´ï¼Œæ£æ˜¯å…¸åž‹çš„大众æ€ç»´ã€‚行外人士在事案é¢å‰ï¼Œä¸æ˜¯å› 为ä¸çŸ¥é“规则而ä¸è€ƒè™‘è§„åˆ™ï¼Œè€Œæ˜¯åŽ‹æ ¹å°±ä¸ä¹ 惯于用规则方法和程åºæŠ€æœ¯æ¥è€ƒè™‘事案的处ç†ã€‚
äº§ç”Ÿè¯‰è®¼çš„æ¡ˆä»¶æ›´æ˜¯è¿™æ ·ã€‚è®©æˆ‘ä»¬å†çœ‹ä¸ªæ°‘众议论æ€åº¦åŸºæœ¬ä¸¥è‚ƒã€è¾ƒå°‘被“娱ä¹åŒ–â€çš„案件，其ä¸æ³•å¾‹äººæ€ç»´ä¸Žå¤–行人æ€ç»´è¿¥ç„¶ä¸åŒã€‚2008å¹´5月7日的“5.7镪车案â€å‘生åŽï¼Œç½‘络出现了å„ç§è§‚点（甚至有è¦æ±‚判肇事者æ»åˆ‘的），暂且ä¸å¼•ç”¨å…¶è§‚ç‚¹ï¼Œå› ä¸ºå®ƒä¹Ÿä¸é‡è¦ï¼Œæ¤å¤„åªå…³æ³¨å¤§ä¼—观点的兴奋点和焦点，ä¸å¤–乎以下内容：值ç交è¦è¯´åª70ç 太ä¸è±¡è¯äº†ã€‚
肇事者居然爱好玩车。
玩的什么车，还是高级跑车ï¼
父æ¯å¹²ä»€ä¹ˆçš„，商人丨一定是ä¸æ³•å•†äººæˆ–富商。
镪车还撞æ»äººï¼Œå¯ŒäºŒä»£å¹²çš„ï¼
ä½ çœ‹è‚‡äº‹è€…çš„åŒä¼´çš„表情，还那么轻æ¾ä¸¨è¢«å®³äººæ˜¯åæ ¡æ¯•ä¸šç”Ÿï¼
被害人的人å“与工作都很优秀。
æ‹çˆ±å…«å¹´å¹¶ä¸”今年准备结婚，居然被撞æ»äº†ä¸¨çœ‹çœ‹è¢«å®³äººé‚£å¼ é—照，多å¯çˆ±å¤šå¯æƒœï¼
被害人æ¯æ ¡çš„å¦ç”Ÿä¸Šè¡—多么有åºå•Šã€‚
市民民愤æžå¤§â€¦â€¦
大众对事案的关注往往ä¸æ˜¯æŠŠé‡ç‚¹æ”¾åœ¨æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´çš„å¿…è¦è€ƒè™‘上，而是在没有法律æ€ç»´å’Œæ–¹æ³•çš„åŸºç¡€ä¸Šï¼Œæ— é™æ‰©å¤§äº†è€ƒè™‘çš„å¤–å›´å› ç´ ã€‚æ³•å¾‹äººå¯¹æœ¬æ¡ˆåˆä¹Žæ³•ç†é€»è¾‘çš„æ€ç»´å› ç´ æ˜¯ï¼šé©¾è½¦æ’žäººä¾µå®³çš„æ˜¯ä¸æ˜¯ç‰¹å®šçš„对象（犯罪的侵害客体）肇事者驾车行为是交通è¿è¾“还是镪车寻求刺激（犯罪的主观方é¢ï¼‰è¶…速程度（犯罪客观方é¢ï¼‰è‚‡äº‹è½¦è¾†è¢«éƒ¨åˆ†æ”¹è£…（犯罪客观方é¢ï¼‰è‚‡äº‹è€…æ³•å®šå¹´é¾„ä¸Žç²¾ç¥žç—…æŽ’é™¤ï¼ˆçŠ¯ç½ªä¸»ä½“ï¼‰è¢«å®³äººæœ‰æ— è¿‡é”™ï¼ˆæ˜¯å¦åœ¨äººè¡Œé“ï¼‰è‚‡äº‹å½“æ—¶æœ‰æ— ä¸å¯æŠ—力（比如åŒä¹˜çš„人故æ„åˆ¶é€ è½¦ç¥¸ï¼‰é™¤åŽ»é‚£äº›è¢«å¨±ä¹åŒ–的案件，街头巷尾或网络ä¸ä¹Ÿä¸ä¹ä¸¥è‚ƒçš„讨论。尽管是严肃的，但它们和法律人的æ€ç»´ä¸€å¯¹ç…§ï¼Œå¤§éƒ½è¡¨çŽ°å‡ºä¸¤ç§æ€ç»´çš„差异，å˜åœ¨å¤§ä¼—生活逻辑与èŒä¸šä¸“门逻辑之间的差异和冲çªã€‚当然，ä¸æŽ’除有的案件ä¸ä¸ªåˆ«æ³•å¾‹äººçš„低级错误。但我们ä¸å¾—ä¸æ‰¿è®¤è¿™æ ·çš„现实：法律人的æ€ç»´æ˜¯å˜åœ¨çš„。法律人的æ€ç»´ä¸Žå¤§ä¼—æ€ç»´å˜åœ¨å·®å¼‚，并且法律人的æ€ç»´æ˜¯ä¸€ç§æ³•å¾‹èŒä¸šçš„专业逻辑，它与民众的生活逻辑之间ä¸ä»…有é‡å¤§å·®å¼‚，还å˜åœ¨ä¸¥é‡çš„ç´§å¼ å…³ç³»ã€‚è¯´æ³•å¾‹äººæœ‰ç‹¬ç‰¹çš„æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´ï¼Œå¹¶ä¸æ˜¯å¦‚è‹åŠ›æ‰€è¯´çš„，åªæ˜¯æˆ‘们ä¸å›½æ²¡æœ‰å®žè·µç»éªŒçš„法å¦å¦è€…æ出的。æ®æˆ‘们目å‰æ‰€é˜…读的范围，法律人的æ€ç»´æœ€æ—©æ˜¯ç”±16世纪英国法官柯克æ示的，他在与国王的辩论ä¸ï¼Œè®¤ä¸ºæ³•å¾‹äººå…·æœ‰â€œæŠ€æœ¯ç†æ€§â€ï¼Œè€Œå¤§ä¼—çš„ç†æ€§æ˜¯æ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ€ç»´çš„特殊性，并ä¸æ˜¯è¯´è¡Œå¤–人å¦ä¸ä¼šï¼Œä¸æ˜¯æŒ‡è¡Œå¤–人用ä¸åˆ°ï¼Œè€Œæ˜¯è¡Œå¤–人ä¸ç»æ³•å¾‹è®ç»ƒè€Œæš‚时没有。如果行外人认为有必è¦ï¼Œä¹Ÿå¯ä»¥æ¥å¦ä¹ 和接å—è®ç»ƒï¼Œä¹‹åŽæŽŒæ¡æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•ï¼Œæˆä¸ºæ³•å¾‹äººã€‚è¿™ç§ç‰¹æ®Šçš„èŒä¸šæ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•ä»Žç†è®ºä¸Šè®²æ˜¯å¯ä»¥é€šè¿‡æ•™è‚²è¢«æ™®åŠçš„，但从æ“作上讲，由于社会需è¦åˆ†å·¥ï¼Œå‘展出å„ç§ä¸“业，法律行业和牧师ã€åŒ»å¸ˆã€æ•™å¸ˆç‰æœ€å…ˆå‘展æˆä¸ºPrtfession，而ä¸å†æ˜¯trade，进而生æˆäº†ä¸€ç§èŒä¸šåˆ¶åº¦ï¼ˆä½ ä¸å…·æœ‰è¿™ç§æ€ç»´å°±ä¸èƒ½è¿›å…¥èŒä¸šå…±åŒä½“，这也是需è¦èŒä¸šèµ„æ ¼è€ƒè¯•çš„æ ¹æœ¬åŽŸå› æ‰€åœ¨ï¼‰ã€‚æœ±æ–‡ç¬¬ä¸ƒéƒ¨åˆ†è®²äº†â€œç†å–»æ³•ç›²çš„ä¸å¯ç†å–»â€ï¼Œæ€»è€Œè¨€ä¹‹ï¼Œå…¶æ„æ€æ˜¯è¯´ç½‘络的言论都是胡说的，别信。这åˆèµ°å‘了å¦ä¸€æžç«¯ï¼Œè¡¨çŽ°å‡ºå¯¹æ°‘众和行外人士的轻视甚至鄙视。民众在针对公案的表达ä¸ï¼Œä¹Ÿæœ‰æ°‘ä¼—è‰æ ¹é˜¶å±‚çš„åˆç†è¯‰æ±‚，æ£æ‰€è°“æ„ã€ä¸»é¢˜åŠå…¶ä¿¡æ¯å¯¹ç§°ã€‹ä¸€æ–‡ä¸ã€”7〕已ç»ä½œäº†è®ºè¿°ï¼Œåœ¨æ¤ä¸å†èµ˜è¿°ã€‚
å››ã€å¼ºè°ƒæ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ€ç»´ä¸ç‰äºŽè½»è§†å¤–行人æ€ç»´è‹åŠ›æ€»æ˜¯ä¸¾ä¾‹è¯´æ˜Žè°è°è°éžç§‘ç出身也干得很好，甚至说法盲也å¯ä»¥å½“æ³•å®˜ã€‚å…¶å®žè¿™æ ·çš„äº‹å®žç›¸å¯¹äºŽæ•´ä¸ªæ³•å¾‹äººå…±åŒä½“，毕竟是个别情况和少数情况。è‹åŠ›å€Ÿæ³¢æ–¯çº³çš„è¯è¯´ï¼Œæ°å…‹é€Šæ²¡æœ‰ä¸Šè¿‡æ³•å¦é™¢ï¼Œå¡å¤šä½ä»Žæ³•å¦é™¢ä¸¾å¦äº†ï¼Œæ±‰å¾·ä»Žä¸šå¾‹å¸ˆå®žåŠ¡å¾ˆå¤±è´¥ï¼Œè€Œéœå§†æ–¯æ—¢éžæˆåŠŸçš„律师，也ä¸æ˜¯æœ€åƒå¾‹å¸ˆçš„æ³•å®˜â€¦â€¦å¹¶å› æ¤ç»“论认为法律上的伟大éšå«çš„就是è¦è¶…越法律。言下之æ„æ˜¯ï¼šä½ çœ‹ï¼Œä»–ä»¬éƒ½ä¸é‚£ä¹ˆä¸“业，å´æˆä¸ºè¶…越法律的伟大的法官。笔者的质疑和åé—®å¯å½’纳〔6〕柯克说：“诉讼并ä¸æ˜¯ä¾è‡ªç„¶ç†æ€§ï¼ˆnaturalreason）æ¥å†³æ–的，而是ä¾äººä¸ºç†æ€§ï¼ˆartfcialreason）和为三点：第，这ç§å“²å¦å®¶èˆ¬çš„伟大法官在人类å¸æ³•å²ä¸Šç©¶ç«Ÿæœ‰å‡ ä¸ªå‘¢ï¼Œäººç±»èƒ½å‡ºå‡ ä¸ªè¿™æ ·çš„å¤©æ‰æ³•å®˜å‘¢ï¼Œå¦‚果天下的法官多数ä¸æ˜¯è¿™æ ·çš„，那么这些多数的法律人是å¦éœ€è¦é€šè¿‡ç§‘çè®ç»ƒæ¥æŽŒæ¡æ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•å‘¢ï¼Œç¬¬äºŒï¼Œä½ 能用个别的超凡法官æ¥è¯´æ˜Žæˆåƒä¸Šä¸‡å¹³å‡¡ï¼ˆå…¸åž‹ï¼‰æ³•å®˜æ‰€éœ€è¦å…·å¤‡çš„èŒä¸šæ€ç»´ç‰¹ç‚¹å—，为什么ä¸ä»Žæ™®é的大多数法律人去看待这个问题呢，第三，个别天æ‰åœ¨æ²¡æœ‰å¦è¿‡æ³•å¾‹ä¸“业或å¦å¾—ä¸å¥½çš„æƒ…å†µä¸‹ï¼Œä½ èƒ½æŽ’é™¤ä»–ä»¬æœ‰å¯èƒ½åœ¨æ³•å®˜å¸ä½ä¸Šæ½œå¿ƒé’»ç ”法律æ€è€ƒå’Œå¸æ³•æ–¹æ³•å—，åŒæ—¶ï¼Œä¹Ÿè¦çœ‹åˆ°å¸æ³•å·¥ä½œä¸ç¡®å®žå˜åœ¨äº›çŽ¯èŠ‚需è¦å¤–行人的æ€ç»´ï¼Œæ¯”如英国的å°é¢æ³•åºæ´¾ç§‘ç的人放在西部基层法院或乡镇派出法åºæ³•å®˜çš„ä½ç½®ä¸Šï¼Œå¯èƒ½æ˜¯å®¹æ˜“干得好的。把éžç§‘ç的人放在具有管ç†æ€§è´¨çš„法院院长ä½ç½®ä¸Šï¼Œå°½ç®¡ä¸åˆç†ï¼Œä½†åœ¨ä¸å›½ç‰¹å®šæ¡ä»¶ä¸‹ä¹Ÿå¯èƒ½ä¼šæ˜¯å¹²å¾—ä¸èµ–的。éžæ³•å¾‹ç§‘ç出身的人士进法院，我们ä¸å¦è®¤ä»–们å¯ä»¥åœ¨åŠžæ¡ˆä¸å¦ä¼šä¸€å®šçš„ã€è¾ƒå¤šçš„甚至完全的法律æ€ç»´ã€‚è¿™æ˜¯å› ä¸ºï¼Œä»–ä»¬ä¸ä¸ä¹å–„于å¦ä¹ 的人和善于适应法治ä¸å¥å…¨æ¡ä»¶ä¸‹å¸æ³•çŽ¯å¢ƒçš„人。更é‡è¦çš„是，法盲当法官之åŽï¼Œä¹Ÿå—到å¸æ³•åˆ¶åº¦ä¸å„ç§å®¡åˆ¤æœºåˆ¶çš„约æŸï¼Œæ¯”如â€æ³•ç›²æ³•å®˜â€œå—åˆè®®åºçš„约æŸï¼Œå—程åºä¸çš„检察官和律师的约æŸï¼Œå—审判委员会的约æŸï¼Œè€Œä¸å¾—ä¸åœ¨è¢«åŠ¨çŠ¶æ€ä¸‹å¦ä¼šæ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´ã€‚但是，从制度设计æ¥è®²ï¼Œç§‘ç法律人当法官一定比法盲当法官有更多的åˆç†æ€§ã€‚我们è¦è€ƒè™‘æ™®é情况和普é规律，æ¥æ出担任å¸æ³•äººå‘˜çš„åŸºæœ¬ç´ å…»çš„è¦æ±‚。å¦åˆ™ï¼Œä»–们的工作是会给个人和社会带æ¥é«˜åº¦å±é™©çš„。让ä¸æ‡‚法律专业的人（尽管懂法律专业的法官也会枉法è£åˆ¤ç”šè‡³å«–娼――所以我们è¦å¼ºè°ƒèŒä¸šä¼¦ç†é“德与专业技能的并é‡ï¼‰æ¥åŠžç†æ¶‰åŠå½“事人财产ã€äººèº«ç”šè‡³ç”Ÿå‘½çš„案件，其å±é™©æ€§æ˜¯æˆ‘们æ¯ä¸ªå…¬æ°‘都è¦æ‹…心的ï¼
æˆ‘ä»¬ä¸»å¼ æ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ€ç»´æœ‰åŠ©äºŽæ£ç¡®çš„法律判æ–，ä¸ç‰äºŽè¯´æ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ€ç»´æ˜¯æœ€æŽ¥è¿‘真ç†çš„，法律人也ä¸æ˜¯ä¸ä¼šçŠ¯æ€ç»´é”™è¯¯çš„。法律人如果夸大规则和概念的稳定性，机械教æ¡åœ°ç†è§£æ³•å¾‹ï¼Œå¯¹æ¦‚念作形å¼åŒ–ç†è§£ï¼Œæœ‰æ—¶ä¹Ÿä¼šèƒŒç¦»çœŸç†ã€è¿èƒŒæ£ä¹‰ã€‚笔者在过去å余年兼èŒå¾‹å¸ˆçš„ç»åŽ†ä¸ï¼Œé‡åˆ°è¿‡ä¸å°‘è¿™æ ·çš„ä¾‹å。比如《继承法》第17æ¡è§„定“自书é—嘱由é—嘱人亲笔书写â€ï¼Œæˆ‘们在电脑和打å°è®¾å¤‡ä¸šå·²æ™®åŠçš„今天，就ä¸èƒ½æœºæ¢°åˆ»æ¿åœ°æŠŠç«‹é—嘱人用电脑打å°åŽç¾å—ç›–ç« çš„é—嘱书，ä¸å½“作é—嘱æ¥è§£é‡Šã€‚“一如人类所有的追求和行为，法å¦ä¹Ÿå¸¦æœ‰ä¸è¶³å¹¶éå—å±é™©ã€‚但是，人们å¯ä»¥è®¾æƒ³ï¼Œä¼—多优秀的人为之付出精力的法å¦ï¼Œä¸æ˜¯å®Œå…¨æ²¡æœ‰ç†æ™ºçš„。â€38〕æ£å› 为如æ¤ï¼Œæ³•å¾‹æ–¹æ³•ä½“ç³»ä¸ä¸ä»…ä»…åªæœ‰å—义解释，还形æˆäº†ç›®çš„解释ã€æ¼æ´žå¡«è¡¥ã€æ³•å¾‹åŽŸåˆ™ç‰ä¸ç¡®å®šæ¡æ¬¾çš„特殊适用方法，甚至所谓“超越法律â€çš„法律推ç†ï¼Œä»Žè€Œæœ€å¤§é™åº¦åœ°é¿å…å¯èƒ½çš„错误。但这些ä»ç„¶æ— 法百分之百地é¿å…é”™è¯¯ï¼Œå› ä¸ºæ³•å¾‹æœ¬èº«å¯èƒ½ä¹Ÿä¼šæœ‰é”™è¯¯ã€‚æ£å¦‚一切诉讼程åºéƒ½åªæ˜¯ä»¥å½¢å¼æ£ä¹‰ä¸ºæœ€ä½Žé™åº¦çš„工具，在æ¤å‰æ下，尽å¯èƒ½åœ°è¿½æ±‚实质æ£ä¹‰ã€‚诉讼程åºåªæ˜¯å¯»æ‰¾ç¨‹åºæ„义上具有盖然性的相对的真ç†ã€çœŸç›¸å’ŒçœŸå®žï¼Œä¸èƒ½ä¿è¯è¯‰è®¼ç¨‹åºåƒä¸€æž¶æŽ¢æ±‚真ç†ã€çœŸç›¸å’ŒçœŸå®žçš„机器。
法律人的æ€ç»´æ˜¯ä¸æ˜¯ä¸€å®šä»£è¡¨çœŸç†ï¼Œå¤–行人的æ€ç»´å°±æ²¡æœ‰ä»·å€¼å‘¢ï¼Œè®¤è¯†è¿™ä¸ªé—®é¢˜å¾ˆé‡è¦ï¼Œå¦åˆ™éžæ³•å¾‹äººéƒ½ä¼šå¯¹æ³•å¾‹äººæœ‰è¯¯è§£å’ŒæŠµè§¦ï¼Œä»¥ä¸ºæ³•å¾‹äººè‡ªæƒæŸç§æŠ€æœ¯å°±é‚£ä¹ˆç‹‚妄，或者如è‹åŠ›æ‰€è¯´çš„“å›ä¸´å¤©ä¸‹â€
了。问题在于，法律人æ€ç»´åªæ˜¯â€œåœ¨åˆ¶å®šæ³•çš„范畴内â€æ˜¯æŽ¥è¿‘真ç†çš„，并éžæ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ€ç»´æ‰æ˜¯æœ€æ£ç¡®çš„。比如在“å´è‹±æ¡ˆâ€çš„争议ä¸ï¼Œå¼ 维迎认为刑法上的éžæ³•é›†èµ„罪本身是ä¸åˆç†çš„，是“æ¶æ³•â€ã€‚我们有ç†ç”±ç›¸ä¿¡ä»–是有ç»æµŽå¦ç†è®ºä¾æ®çš„，他对刑法上éžæ³•é›†èµ„罪æ¡æ¬¾çš„这判æ–，ä¸æ˜¯â€œæ³•å¾‹äººçš„æ€ç»´''，但他很å¯èƒ½æ˜¯æœ€æŽ¥è¿‘真ç†çš„，或者至少在将æ¥åˆ‘法修改时是æ£ç¡®çš„。如果按照法律人的æ€ç»´ï¼Œé‚£ä¹ˆæˆ‘ä»¬æ˜¯æ€Žæ ·æ€è€ƒçš„呢，å¯èƒ½ä¼šå‡ºçŽ°ä¸¤ç§è§’度：第ç§æ˜¯æ‰¿è®¤è¯¥æ¡æ¬¾åœ¨ç›®å‰çš„有效性，这是从维护法的安定性立场上的法律æ€è€ƒï¼›ç¬¬äºŒç§å®žè´¨ä¸Šå’Œå¼ 维迎的观点相似，但法律人会æ€è€ƒï¼šé€šè¿‡ä»€ä¹ˆæ ·çš„法律方法æ¥é¿å…适用到å´è‹±èº«ä¸Šï¼Œæˆ–者通过什么方法使得对å´è‹±å‡è½»åˆ‘罚是åˆç†çš„，这就è¦è¿ç”¨æ³•å¾‹äººçš„â€è¶…越法律“的æ€ç»´ä¸Žæ–¹æ³•äº†ã€‚
我们没有必è¦å› ä¸ºå¼ ç»´è¿Žæ²¡æœ‰æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´å°±åŽ»æ‰¹è¯„他或讥讽他，也没有必è¦è§‰å¾—他的观点是接近真ç†çš„就对法律人自己的æ€ç»´è¡¨ç¤ºæ€€ç–‘，没了自信甚至放弃。有人å¯èƒ½æ‹…心，承认法律人æ€ç»´çš„独特性会带æ¥èŒä¸šä¼˜è¶Šæ„Ÿã€‚è¿™ä¸æ˜¯å¿…然的，但也ä¸æ˜¯ä»€ä¹ˆå事。其实åƒç‰§å¸ˆã€åŒ»å¸ˆå’Œæ•™å¸ˆèŒä¸šï¼Œæœ‰èŒä¸šä¼˜è¶Šæ„Ÿä¹Ÿæ²¡æœ‰ä»€ä¹ˆå‰¯ä½œç”¨ï¼Œè¯´ä¸å‡†è¿˜å而增添了èŒä¸šè£èª‰æ„Ÿã€‚æ£å¦‚医师有优越感，就ä¸ä¼šè†¨èƒ€åˆ°åŽ»æ§è§†ä¸æ‡‚医的人。至于医生å‘病人的现象，那是医德范畴的问题。但是，强调法律人æ€ç»´çš„独特性，最需è¦é¿å…的是法律人滥用这ç§ä¸“业优越感，更ä¸åº”该让这ç§ä¼˜è¶Šæ„Ÿè†¨èƒ€åˆ°æ§è§†å’Œå‘å®³å¤–è¡Œçš„æ°‘ä¼—ã€‚è¿™å°±æ˜¯ç¬”è€…ä¸ºä»€ä¹ˆä¸»å¼ æ³•å¾‹èŒä¸šä¼¦ç†çš„é‡è¦æ€§ï¼Œä¸»å¼ 把法律伦ç†ä½œä¸ºæ³•å¦é™¢å¿…修课的ç†ç”±ã€‚
真æ£æˆç†Ÿçš„法律人，深知自己åªæ˜¯åœ¨å®žå®šæ³•çš„范畴内去努力接近真ç†ï¼Œæ˜¯åœ¨å¾ˆæœ‰é™çš„范围内履行法律人的神圣èŒè´£ï¼Œæ³•å®˜åªæ˜¯åœ¨å®žå®šæ³•èŒƒå›´å†…作出有效力的判决，没有必è¦è®¤ä¸ºè‡ªå·±çš„判æ–是真ç†æˆ–最接近真ç†ã€‚拉德布é²èµ«è¯´â€œå› 为ä¸å¯èƒ½æ–定什么是公æ£ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥æˆ‘们必须判æ–什么应当是åˆæ³•çš„。å‡å¦‚真ç†è¡Œä¸ºæ˜¯ä¸å¯èƒ½çš„，那么就有必è¦ä»£ä¹‹ä»¥æƒå¨çš„行为。相对主义属于实è¯ä¸»ä¹‰â€â€œåªæœ‰é‚£äº›å…·æœ‰å†…疚之心的法律èŒä¸šäººï¼Œæ‰èƒ½æˆä¸ºå¥½çš„法律èŒä¸šäººæ€»ä¹‹ï¼Œæˆ‘们法律人需è¦ä¿æŒä¸€ç§è°¦å‘çš„æ€åº¦ï¼Œæ¥çœ‹å¾…自己的èŒä¸šå’Œå·¥ä½œã€‚
五ã€ç¾Žå›½ä¸å˜åœ¨â€œæ³•å¾‹äººæ€ç»´â€å—，ä¸éš¾å‘现，è‹åŠ›æ•´ç¯‡æ–‡ç« 都以美国法为背景，美国法官ã€ç¾Žå›½æ¡ˆä¾‹ã€ç¾Žå›½ç†è®ºâ€¦â€¦å§‹ç»ˆæ²¡æœ‰åŒæ—¶å…³å¿ƒå’Œå…³æ³¨æ¬§é™†æ³•ï¼Œå…¶ä¸çš„ä¸åˆç†ä¹‹å¤„就是一å¶éšœç›®ã€‚他说“åƒæ³•å¾‹äººé‚£æ ·æ€è€ƒâ€åªæ˜¯æ³•å¦é™¢è¿˜è¯´ï¼Œè‹±ç¾Žæ³•å¾‹äººä¸Žæ¬§é™†æ³•å¾‹äººæ²¡æœ‰ç§ç»Ÿçš„法律æ€ç»´å’Œæ–¹æ³•ã€‚这是个似是而éžçš„判æ–。
事实上，在整个JD教育的三年过程ä¸ï¼Œç¾Žå›½æ³•å¦é™¢éƒ½è¦æ±‚å¦ç”Ÿâ€œåƒå¾‹å¸ˆé‚£æ ·æ€è€ƒâ€ï¼Œå¹¶è¿›è¡Œè¿™æ ·çš„èŒä¸šåŒ–的技能è®ç»ƒï¼Œå…¶ç›®çš„是使得JDå¦ç”ŸèŽ·åˆ°å¾‹å¸ˆèŒä¸šåº”有的那ç§æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•ã€‚而年10月21日。
且，在法律人从业之åŽï¼Œä»ç„¶è¦ä»¥è¿™ç§æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•å’ŒæŠ€èƒ½åŽ»åº”å¯¹çœŸå®žçš„æ¡ˆä»¶ã€‚å› æ¤ï¼Œè‹åŠ›æ‰€è°“çš„åªâ€œå¯¹ä¸€å¹´çº§æ–°ç”Ÿçš„è¦æ±‚â€ï¼Œæ˜¯ä¸é‚£ä¹ˆå‡†ç¡®çš„。å³ä½¿æ˜¯æ¯•ä¸šåŽçš„法科生，也还是è¦åƒå¾‹å¸ˆé‚£æ ·æ€è€ƒã€‚“Thinkinglikealawyerâ€æœ‰å…¶å›ºæœ‰çš„缺陷，但å³ä¾¿å¦‚æ¤ï¼Œä¹Ÿæ˜¾ç„¶å¾—ä¸å‡ºâ€œä¸å˜åœ¨æ³•å¾‹äººæ€ç»´â€çš„结论。
众所周知，英美法官与欧陆法官æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•ä¸Šå˜åœ¨ä¸€å®šçš„差异，但两者ä¸è‡³äºŽå·®å¼‚到了连æ¥è®²é¢æ¡ã€åœ°ç“œã€çŽ‰ç±³ä¸æ˜¯ç²®é£Ÿâ€œæ ·ï¼Œä¹ 惯åƒå¤§ç±³çš„å—方人ä¸çˆ±åƒé¢æ¡ã€çŽ‰ç±³ç‰ï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯äº‹å®žï¼Œä½†ä¸ç‰äºŽè¯´é¢æ¡ã€åœ°ç“œã€çŽ‰ç±³å°±ä¸æ˜¯ç²®é£Ÿã€‚大米与é¢æ¡ä¹‹é—´ä»ç„¶æ˜¯æœ‰å…±æ€§çš„。如果说美国法官当ä¸æ²¡æœ‰å¦ä¹ 德国法官的法律教义å¦ï¼Œå°±å¦è®¤æ³•æ•™ä¹‰å¦æ–¹æ³•æ˜¯æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´ï¼Œè¿™å‡ 乎就ç‰äºŽä¸ªåˆ«æ´‹äººè¯´â€ä¸å›½çš„ç·åä¸æ˜¯é¤å…·â€œä¸€æ ·ã€‚
其实我们认为法律人å˜åœ¨ç§æ³•å¾‹æ€ç»´ï¼Œå¹¶ä¸å¦å®šä¸åŒå›½å®¶çš„法律人有差异，也从æ¥ä¸å¦å®šåŒä¸€å›½å®¶çš„法律人在法律æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•ä¸Šæœ‰ç†Ÿç»ƒæ°´å¹³çš„差异。但求åŒå˜å¼‚ã€åŽ»ç²—å–精地æ¥åˆ†æžå½’纳，在法律人内部，èŒä¸šæ€ç»´æ€»æ˜¯å˜åœ¨ä¸€äº›ç›¸åŒæˆ–相似的法律æ€ç»´æ–¹æ³•ã€ä¹ 惯ã€ç‰¹ç‚¹ç”šè‡³è§„律。
我们知é“美国是判例法国家，åˆæ˜¯çŽ°å®žä¸»ä¹‰æ³•å¦å 主导地ä½çš„å›½å®¶ï¼Œå› æ¤ä¸Žå¤§é™†æ³•ç³»çš„法律æ€ç»´æœ‰å¾ˆå¤šåŒºåˆ«ã€‚æˆæ–‡æ³•å›½å®¶çš„法律人和判例法国家的法律人在规则这个大å‰æ上就å˜åœ¨ç€å¾ˆå¤§å·®å¼‚，“超越法律â€çš„å‰ææ¡ä»¶å› æ¤æœ‰å¾ˆå¤§ä¸åŒï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯ä¼—所周知的。æˆæ–‡æ³•ä¼ 统下的法律人，自然形æˆäº†ä¸¥æ ¼éµå¾ªæ—¢å®šè§„则的法教义å¦æ–¹æ³•ï¼Œè€Œè‹±ç¾Žæ³•å¾‹äººé¢å¯¹çš„都ä¸æ˜¯æˆæ–‡æ³•è§„则，所以“超越法律â€æ‰æœ‰å¿…è¦æ€§å’Œå¯èƒ½æ€§ã€‚尤其值得关注的是，留下法官ç»å…¸æ¡ˆä¾‹å¤§å¤šæ˜¯æœ‰â€œé€ 法â€è´¡çŒ®çš„具有çªç ´æ€§å’Œå˜é©æ€§çš„案例。尤其是著å的现实主义ã€å®žç”¨ä¸»ä¹‰çš„法官，如éœå§†æ–¯ã€å¸ƒå…°ä»£æ–¯ã€å¡å¤šä½ã€æ±‰å¾·ã€æ²ƒä¼¦ã€æ³¢æ–¯çº³ç‰ï¼Œä»–们åªæ˜¯å…·æœ‰é¢„言家气质的个别法官，而多数没有留下ç»å…¸æ¡ˆä¾‹çš„éžè‘—å法官是怎么æ–案的，法律ç†è®ºå®¶ä¸ä¼šç»™äºˆå¤ªå¤šå…³æ³¨ã€‚å› æ¤ç¬”者常说“异议者éœå§†æ–¯æ³•å®˜ä¹‹æ‰€ä»¥ä¼Ÿå¤§ï¼Œæ˜¯å› 为他ä¸æ˜¯æ™®é€šæ³•å®˜â€ã€‚
朱文所引用的FrederickSchauer的著作æ到的“法律规则ã€å…ˆä¾‹ã€æƒå¨æ€§ã€ç±»æ¯”推ç†ã€æ™®é€šæ³•ã€æ³•å¾‹çŽ°å®žä¸»ä¹‰ã€æ³•æ¡è§£é‡Šã€å¸æ³•æ„è§ã€é€ æ³•ï¼ˆè§„åˆ™ä¸Žæ ‡å‡†ï¼‰ã€æ³•å¾‹é—®é¢˜ä¸Žäº‹å®žé—®é¢˜ã€ä¸¾è¯è´£ä»»å’ŒæŽ¨å®šç‰â€ï¼Œè¿™äº›ä¸æ˜¯æ³•å¾‹
Bike Repair Tools,Inexpensive Bicycle Tool,Multiuse Bike Tool,New Style Multi Bike Tools
Easy-Go Outdoor Co.,Ltd. , https://www.yjeasy-go.com