在证据与事实之间:一种证据博弈观
|
摘要
本文提出了一种新的证据观,即证据博弈观。在诉讼中,证据与事实之间有两种基本思维活动:一是证据推理;二是事实论证。二者关注的是诉讼同一环节的两个不同面向。证据推理是从法律证据推导出可能案件事实的思维过程,而事实论证则是为事实主张寻找法律证据支撑的思维过程。从思维进程上讲,前者关注的是"从前提到结论"的事实推导,后者关注的是"从结论到前提,再回到结论"的证据挖掘。证据博弈说认为,证据的选择和呈现序次的不同均会导向案件事实和裁判结果的差异,而起、应、审三方则可以各自进行策略操控,以实现其最终目的。
In this paper we put forward a new view of evidence, i.e., the view of game-based evidence game. In litigation, there are two basic thinking activities-evidential reasoning and factual argument between evidence and facts. Both of them focus on two different aspects of the same link of litigation. Evidential reasoning is the process of thinking to follow possible facts of a case from legal evidence, while a factual argument is the process of thinking to discovery legal evidence to support the factual claim. From the perspective of thinking process, the former focuses on a derivation from premise to conclusion as fact, while the latter focuses on the evidence mining from conclusion to premise and then back to conclusion. According to the game-based evidence theory, the different choice of evidence and its different order in presentation in court will lead to the difference in case facts and judgments, while the suitor, the respondent and the trier can strategically maneuver their legal argumentation based on their respective final goals to achieve.
In this paper we put forward a new view of evidence, i.e., the view of game-based evidence game. In litigation, there are two basic thinking activities-evidential reasoning and factual argument between evidence and facts. Both of them focus on two different aspects of the same link of litigation. Evidential reasoning is the process of thinking to follow possible facts of a case from legal evidence, while a factual argument is the process of thinking to discovery legal evidence to support the factual claim. From the perspective of thinking process, the former focuses on a derivation from premise to conclusion as fact, while the latter focuses on the evidence mining from conclusion to premise and then back to conclusion. According to the game-based evidence theory, the different choice of evidence and its different order in presentation in court will lead to the difference in case facts and judgments, while the suitor, the respondent and the trier can strategically maneuver their legal argumentation based on their respective final goals to achieve.
引文
(1)Hume,D.,2007,An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding,Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Peter Millican,New York:Oxford University Press,p80.
(2)(4)(5)Kelly,T.,2016,Evidence,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,https://plato.stanford.edu/.
(3)Quine,W.V.&Ullian,1978,J.S.,The Web of Belief,2nd edition,New York:Mc Graw-Hill,Inc,p.16.
(6)(39)Ho,H.L.,2015,the Legal Concept of Evidence,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,https://plato.stanford.edu/.
(7)(31)(38)张保生:《事实、证据与事实认定》,《中国社会科学》2017年第8期。
(8)(32)张志铭:《何谓“法律真实”》,《人民法院报》2002年3月15日第3版。
(9)所谓目的取向型是指推理和论证均要为论证者目的服务;所谓实践推理或论证是指这种推理或论证的分析、评价与建构总是具有语境依赖性。
(10)陈波:《以事实为根据还是以证据为根据?---科学研究和司法审判中的哲学考量》,《南国学术》2017年第1期;陈波:《以审判程序为中心,以证据为依据,以法律为准绳---答舒国滢、宋旭光的商榷》,《政法论丛》2018年第2期。
(11)舒国滢、宋旭光:《以证据为根据还是以事实为根据?---与陈波教授商榷》,《政法论丛》2018年第1期。
(12)[加]道格拉斯·沃尔顿著,梁庆寅、熊明辉等译:《法律论证与证据》,中国政法大学出版社2010年版,第204页。
(13)Montrose,E.,1954,Basic Concepts of the Law of Evidence,Law Quarterly Review,70:527~555.
(14)Ayer,A.J.,1972,Probability and Evidence,New York:Columbia University Press.Kelly,T.,2016,Evidence,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,https://plato.stanford.edu/.
(15)我们在此并不打算去详细讨论推理与推论异同,而将二者当作同义词对待。
(16)实际上,从现代归纳逻辑视角来看,归纳推理的真值语义并非真假二值,并不预设“真假二值原则”普遍有效,而是概率值[0,1],而经典演绎推理的真值语义则预设了“真假二值原则”普遍有效。
(17)Blair,J.A.,2016,A Defense of Conduction:A Reply to Adler,Argumentation,30:109~128.
(18)晋荣东:《权衡论证的结构与图解》,《逻辑学研究》2017年第3期。
(19)(21)(24)(25)(35)(37)Di Bello,M.&Verheij,B.2018,Evidential Reasoning,In:G.Bongiovanni et al.(eds.),Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation,Dordrecht:Springer Nature B.V.,pp.447~493.
(20)(40)熊明辉:《诉讼论证:诉讼博弈的逻辑分析》,中国政法大学出版社2010年版,第75页。
(22)Dung,P.M.,1995,On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning,Logic Programming and n-persons Games,Artificial Intelligence77:321~357.
(23)Wagenaar,W.A.,van Koppen,P.J.,&Crombag,1993,H.F.M,Anchored Narratives:the Psychology of Criminal Evidence,Herefordshire:St.Martin’s Press,pp.21~43.
(26)然而,汉语中的“解释”常常对应两种涵义:一是文本解释(interpretation);二是因果解释(explanation)。前者是从文本出发进行的文义解释,比如,法律五段论从法律规范集到规范解释集的思维过程(熊明辉,2010,第144页);后者则是一个从作为结果的现象出发说明导致该现象的原因的回溯过程,因此,有学者主张将这种解释称为“说明”更加准确,这一观点源自与舒国滢教授的私下讨论。
(27)从语用论辩学视角来看,论证的起点是意见分歧,而论证的目的就是要消除意见分歧。
(28)Walton,D.N.,1998,the New Dialectic:Conversational Contexts of Argument,Toronto:University of Toronto Press,pp.85-86.
(29)Rescher,N.,1977,Dialectics:A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge,Albany:State University of New York Press,p.43.
(30)当然,如果有人持的是实质公正优先于程序公正的观念,那么情况就会有很大不同,比如,他会主张法律审判就是为了查明事实真相。鉴于如何判定达到了实质公正,我们很难找到规范的标准来判断实质公正的实现,也很难找到一种恰当的理论为其辩护,因此,我们在此主张程序公正优先于实质公正的原则。
(33)Xiong,M.&Zenker,F.,2018,Legal Facts in Argumentation-Based Litigation Games,Argumentation,32:197~211.
(34)Turow,S.,1987,Presumed Innocent,New York:Warner Book,pp.1~3.
(36)也许有人说,在法律诉讼过程中,不是有免证事实吗?需要说明的是,免证事实并不等于没有证据支持,而是无需举出证据证明。
(41)(43)[荷]H·范爱默伦:《语用论辩学:一种论证理论》,《湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2017年第5期。Van Eemeren,F.H.,2018,Argumentation Theory:A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective,Dordrecht:Springer,p.112.
(42)熊明辉、杜文静:《重返亚里士多德的论证优度理论》,《河南社会科学》2017年第2期。
(44)(46)(47)(48)Bex,F.J,2010,Arguments,Stories and Criminal Evidence:A Formal Hybrid Theory,Dordrecht:Springer,p.83,33~34,33,83.
(45)(49)Allen,R.J.&Stein,A.,Evidence,2013,Probability,and the Burden of Proof,Arizona Law Review,55:557-602.而且在艾伦和斯坦的意义上,Fact-finding一词的确是“事实认定”之意,因为他们仅从审方视角来讨论证据与事实的关系。
(50)智磊:《新白娘子传奇》,北京爱奇艺科技有限公司和中文在线联合出品,2019年。
(2)(4)(5)Kelly,T.,2016,Evidence,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,https://plato.stanford.edu/.
(3)Quine,W.V.&Ullian,1978,J.S.,The Web of Belief,2nd edition,New York:Mc Graw-Hill,Inc,p.16.
(6)(39)Ho,H.L.,2015,the Legal Concept of Evidence,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,https://plato.stanford.edu/.
(7)(31)(38)张保生:《事实、证据与事实认定》,《中国社会科学》2017年第8期。
(8)(32)张志铭:《何谓“法律真实”》,《人民法院报》2002年3月15日第3版。
(9)所谓目的取向型是指推理和论证均要为论证者目的服务;所谓实践推理或论证是指这种推理或论证的分析、评价与建构总是具有语境依赖性。
(10)陈波:《以事实为根据还是以证据为根据?---科学研究和司法审判中的哲学考量》,《南国学术》2017年第1期;陈波:《以审判程序为中心,以证据为依据,以法律为准绳---答舒国滢、宋旭光的商榷》,《政法论丛》2018年第2期。
(11)舒国滢、宋旭光:《以证据为根据还是以事实为根据?---与陈波教授商榷》,《政法论丛》2018年第1期。
(12)[加]道格拉斯·沃尔顿著,梁庆寅、熊明辉等译:《法律论证与证据》,中国政法大学出版社2010年版,第204页。
(13)Montrose,E.,1954,Basic Concepts of the Law of Evidence,Law Quarterly Review,70:527~555.
(14)Ayer,A.J.,1972,Probability and Evidence,New York:Columbia University Press.Kelly,T.,2016,Evidence,Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,https://plato.stanford.edu/.
(15)我们在此并不打算去详细讨论推理与推论异同,而将二者当作同义词对待。
(16)实际上,从现代归纳逻辑视角来看,归纳推理的真值语义并非真假二值,并不预设“真假二值原则”普遍有效,而是概率值[0,1],而经典演绎推理的真值语义则预设了“真假二值原则”普遍有效。
(17)Blair,J.A.,2016,A Defense of Conduction:A Reply to Adler,Argumentation,30:109~128.
(18)晋荣东:《权衡论证的结构与图解》,《逻辑学研究》2017年第3期。
(19)(21)(24)(25)(35)(37)Di Bello,M.&Verheij,B.2018,Evidential Reasoning,In:G.Bongiovanni et al.(eds.),Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation,Dordrecht:Springer Nature B.V.,pp.447~493.
(20)(40)熊明辉:《诉讼论证:诉讼博弈的逻辑分析》,中国政法大学出版社2010年版,第75页。
(22)Dung,P.M.,1995,On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning,Logic Programming and n-persons Games,Artificial Intelligence77:321~357.
(23)Wagenaar,W.A.,van Koppen,P.J.,&Crombag,1993,H.F.M,Anchored Narratives:the Psychology of Criminal Evidence,Herefordshire:St.Martin’s Press,pp.21~43.
(26)然而,汉语中的“解释”常常对应两种涵义:一是文本解释(interpretation);二是因果解释(explanation)。前者是从文本出发进行的文义解释,比如,法律五段论从法律规范集到规范解释集的思维过程(熊明辉,2010,第144页);后者则是一个从作为结果的现象出发说明导致该现象的原因的回溯过程,因此,有学者主张将这种解释称为“说明”更加准确,这一观点源自与舒国滢教授的私下讨论。
(27)从语用论辩学视角来看,论证的起点是意见分歧,而论证的目的就是要消除意见分歧。
(28)Walton,D.N.,1998,the New Dialectic:Conversational Contexts of Argument,Toronto:University of Toronto Press,pp.85-86.
(29)Rescher,N.,1977,Dialectics:A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge,Albany:State University of New York Press,p.43.
(30)当然,如果有人持的是实质公正优先于程序公正的观念,那么情况就会有很大不同,比如,他会主张法律审判就是为了查明事实真相。鉴于如何判定达到了实质公正,我们很难找到规范的标准来判断实质公正的实现,也很难找到一种恰当的理论为其辩护,因此,我们在此主张程序公正优先于实质公正的原则。
(33)Xiong,M.&Zenker,F.,2018,Legal Facts in Argumentation-Based Litigation Games,Argumentation,32:197~211.
(34)Turow,S.,1987,Presumed Innocent,New York:Warner Book,pp.1~3.
(36)也许有人说,在法律诉讼过程中,不是有免证事实吗?需要说明的是,免证事实并不等于没有证据支持,而是无需举出证据证明。
(41)(43)[荷]H·范爱默伦:《语用论辩学:一种论证理论》,《湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2017年第5期。Van Eemeren,F.H.,2018,Argumentation Theory:A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective,Dordrecht:Springer,p.112.
(42)熊明辉、杜文静:《重返亚里士多德的论证优度理论》,《河南社会科学》2017年第2期。
(44)(46)(47)(48)Bex,F.J,2010,Arguments,Stories and Criminal Evidence:A Formal Hybrid Theory,Dordrecht:Springer,p.83,33~34,33,83.
(45)(49)Allen,R.J.&Stein,A.,Evidence,2013,Probability,and the Burden of Proof,Arizona Law Review,55:557-602.而且在艾伦和斯坦的意义上,Fact-finding一词的确是“事实认定”之意,因为他们仅从审方视角来讨论证据与事实的关系。
(50)智磊:《新白娘子传奇》,北京爱奇艺科技有限公司和中文在线联合出品,2019年。