Reserch On A Field Perspective Of The Reasoning Of Criminal Judgment In China

Since the beginning of this round of judicial reforms,the referee documents have always been the focus of reform.However,in addition to the initial success of the paperwork on the Internet and the streamlining of paperwork,the judge said that the problem of poor management still exists.The theory of reasoning in the adjudicative papers has gone through the narration from the grand narrative whether it should be reasoned to the refinement of the argumentation technique,but it does not go deep into the specific situation in which the judge makes judgments and understands the reasoning of the referee.In epistemology,the center of gravity of the judgment has been focused on the “jurisdiction” issue.It seems that as long as the referee's technology improves,it can automatically synchronize with the judge's reasoning technique.However,although the two are inseparable in the administration of justice,in fact,they belong to two different fields,saying that reason is not a subsidiary of the referee.It has independent value.Therefore,the "judgmental reasoning" is placed in an independent field space observation,and the microscopic point of view of the microscopic individual,the judge,is better able to "sympathize with the understanding" of the reasoning difficulties Chinese judges face in different fields.The referee argues that the study of ethics has entered the level of typed research.In the three major litigation fields,criminal lawsuits are particularly special.It presents the power of the state and the individual's loneliness.Unlike civil and administrative litigation,it has a strong publiclaw character,so its reasoning needs to be more careful.In addition,major criminal cases often become the focus of social concerns,showing a fierce confrontation between the judiciary and public opinion.Therefore,it is of practical significance to study criminal judgment theory from the perspective of microscopic field.Need to clarify the elements of criminal judgment reasoning.It includes constituent elements,content elements,and structural elements.The referee's basis and the grounds of the referee together constitute the reason for the judgment.In the reasoning,the judge is limited to the strict requirements of the criminal referee,often integrating the referee's basis with the referee's reason.This causes the referee's reasons to appear repeatedly and is lawless.Reasons for the referees may include informal sources such as morality and doctrine.They are aimed at persuasion and understanding and cannot be confined to the narrow scope of the legal basis.The content elements of the criminal judgment argument include conviction and sentencing reasoning,and sentencing theory is the core element.However,in reality,due to the sentencing reason,there are many more appeals than convictions and facts.Judges often evade the question of sentencing,and perfunctory.In the structural elements of criminal judgment theory,legal reasoning and factual reasoning are involved,and factual reasoning has long been neglected.This has become the most criticized point in criminal judgments.Evidence is simply cited,and conclusions are drawn directly.There is a lack of correspondence between facts and evidence..In fact,it should be based on the theory that the crime constitutes the source of legitimacy.The particularity of criminal judgment theory is reflected in the legal field of litigation.In addition to the general legal thinking,criminal judges should also have criminal legal thinking,namely,public law thinking,balanced prosecution and defense,and strict evidence thinking.The criminal legal system is directly related to the content of the argument.However,based on the law and relevant judicial interpretations,it is still unable to meet the requirements of judgmental reasoning.Factors outside the law affect the judge as much as the law itself.In addition,the mode of proof in criminal proceedings also greatly influences reasoning.Behind the pattern of proof,the judge can hardly begin to reason,and the form legitimacy is higher than the substantive legitimacy.The indoctrination theory provides judges with a broader argumentation argumentation and space.Under the requirements of the trial-centered reform,the conviction-based reasoning can break through the traditional form and help to obtain the rationality and rationality.Judges will be more affected by the organization's field habits when making criminal judgments.Filled reasoning is a universal phenomenon.It replaces reasoning with conclusions,lacks case characteristics,and has a single format.And behind this there are a number of organizational disciplines that teach judges to reason.If the number of cases is inversely proportional to the number of judges,the lack of incentive mechanism for judges in the evaluation mechanism of judges,or the low weight,does not really constrain the judge's reasoning;court litigation file management has become a tool to control judges,and there are undisclosed volumes.This makes the public unable to know what it really wants and trusting judges;in addition,judge selection,training systems,etc.,largely ignore argumentation techniques and pay more attention to the content of civil service management.These factors hinder the substance of reasoning.Only the humanistic management can break the organizational discipline logic behind the filling reasoning.Judges will be affected by organizational field habits when they make criminal judgments.Filled reasoning is a universal phenomenon.It replaces reasoning with conclusions,lacks case characteristics,and has a single format.And behind this there are a number of organizational disciplines that teach judges to reason.If the number of cases is inversely proportional to the number of judges,the lack of incentive mechanism for judges in the evaluation mechanism of judges,or the low weight,can not really constrain the judge's reasoning;court litigation file management has become a tool to control judges,and there are undisclosed volumes.This makes the public unable to know what it really wants and trusting judges;in addition,judge selection,training systems,etc.,largely ignore argumentation techniques and pay more attention to the content of civil service management.These factors hinder the substance of reasoning.Only the humanistic management can break the organizational discipline logic behind the filling argument.Finally,criminal judgments have given rise to opportunities in the construction of court information.The establishment of the referee document online system and the construction of the wisdom court have,to a certain extent,changed the appearance of the judge's reasoning.Audiovisual text technology and electronic file construction provide judges with complete courtroom information,improve the enthusiasm of making judgment documents,and improve the content of forms.However,science and technology can not improve the substantive quality of judgment judgments.It is more scientific to really encourage judges to raise judgments.Legal system,more humane organizational environment,and a more trusted social environment.