Research On The Application Of Legal Argumentation In Criminal Judgment

Legal argumentation is the core content of judicial decisions and the concentrated embodiment of the application of legal methods.In judicial practice,legal argumentation is to provide evidence and reasons to prove the legitimacy of judicial decisions under specific legal procedures,and is the key to obtaining an acceptable basis for judicial decisions.With the gradual opening of the cyberspace,the reform of the communication model of the criminal trial process and the implementation of the new model of "intelligent interactive trial" reflect the initial success of the judicial reform goal of "letting the adjudicator adjudicate and making the adjudicator responsible",which can be seen from the judicial need for rational negotiation.More and more social public can participate in the trial of cases,reflecting the interaction and confrontation between justice and public opinion,making the demand for legal argumentation in judicial trials sharply increase.The criminal trial is related to citizens’ property rights,personal freedom,and even the right to life and health,so the requirements for argumentation are stricter.From a series of unjust,false,and erroneous cases,it can be found that there are currently problems of "insufficient argumentation","inability to demonstrate",and "avoidance of argumentation" in criminal judgments in China,which not only affects the level of interpretation and reasoning in judicial documents,but also induces judicial injustice,seriously damaging the credibility of the judiciary.This article starts with legal argumentation,which is the core method in legal methodology,and combines criminal trial thinking and criminal law argumentation methods to conduct an indepth study of the significance and application of legal argumentation in criminal judgments.Legal argumentation is topic oriented and a way of thinking that runs through the entire judicial process.It can alleviate the dilemma of mechanical interpretation and multiple legal interpretations in judicial practice,effectively eliminate judicial arbitrariness,and is a method of seeking a balance between formal justice and substantive justice,thereby achieving an ideal choice.The principle of consistency is the minimum requirement of argumentation,while the principle of coherence is the overall requirement of argumentation.The principle of acceptability can ensure the substantive rationality of argumentation,while the principle of universality can ensure the formal rationality of argumentation.In criminal trials,legal argumentation not only possesses the above-mentioned basic principles and functions,but also has its own characteristics and significance in combination with the characteristics of the criminal rule of law.It can promote the integration and symbiosis of formal rule of law and substantive rule of law,increase the rationality of criminal judgments,prevent arbitrary adjudication,and strengthen the acceptability of criminal judgments.It is conducive to eliminating the "procuratorial superiority" factor,ensuring the right to defense,and helping to solve the dilemma of criminal law interpretation.On the basis of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime,the field of argumentation has its particularity.It is necessary to adhere to the effective concepts,rules,and procedures of criminal law,with higher requirements for adequacy and reliability.Theory needs to return to practice.Through empirical research and data analysis of 64 judgments on major criminal wrongs,forgeries,and errors over the past decade,it is found that legal argumentation has not played its due role as a "testing stone" in judicial practice.Through case analysis,this paper analyzes typical criminal cases such as the "Yu Huan Case","Xu Ting Case",and "Nie Shubin Case",compares the differences between the original trial and the second trial,and the retrial decision in terms of reasoning thinking,reasoning process,and expression,and analyzes the use of legal argumentation from a micro perspective.It further finds that there is a lack of logic and argumentation in the use of legal argumentation There are some problems such as the lack of sufficiency and coherence in the justification of the judgment,the single structure of the justification in the judgment,and the lack of language expression.The deep root behind it lies in the influence of the value orientation of criminal justice concepts,the deepening of judges’ argumentation thinking,the lack of standards and specific rules for argumentation,and the disconnection between the style norms of criminal adjudication documents and judicial needs.In criminal trials,how to put legal argumentation into practice is the most needed and complex issue.Accordingly,logic,dialogue,and rhetorical methods can provide a theoretical basis for the application of legal argumentation in criminal judgments.The logical method is the basis of formal validity of judgment,which is conducive to maintaining the value of the rule of law.Logical methods cannot solve the correctness of the premise and require other methods to make up for it.This provides room for rhetoric,dialogue,and other methods to ensure the correctness and rationality of the premise.The dialogue method provides procedural guarantees for the confirmation of judgments,provides a rational argumentation platform for both the prosecution and the defense,and promotes the realization of case justice.The dialogue method stems from its own limitations and needs to follow the basic principles of criminal law to find ways to overcome it,strive to achieve the equality between the prosecution and the defense,avoid excessive moral factors that lead to the abuse of litigation rights,and pay attention to the cultivation of systematic thinking and argumentative thinking,so as to achieve the ideal effect of dialogue.If the logical method emphasizes the validity of the formal dimension and the dialogue method emphasizes the justification of the procedural dimension,then the rhetorical method emphasizes the rationality and acceptability of the content dimension,which is the pursuit of the substantive rule of law.In criminal trials,rhetorical methods can achieve the rationality of the judgment results,which is the key to constructing legal facts.However,the use of rhetorical methods should follow the rules and limitations of argumentation.When using rhetorical argumentation to construct facts,the goal should be to restore natural reality,pay attention to the construction of rhetorical context,avoid excessive influence from the audience,and,on the basis of observing formal logic,reasonably grasp the substitution of "emotional" factors to achieve "consensus" with the "audience.".In criminal judgment,the characteristics and advantages of the three paths should be combined to achieve the dynamic and comprehensive use of logic,dialogue,and rhetoric,providing effective guidance for trial practice,and achieving the common pursuit of formal justice,procedural justice,and substantive justice.The application of legal argumentation in criminal judgments should follow a specific functional logic.The type of argumentation provides a framework for the application of legal argumentation and provides a field of application for the specific application of further argumentation rules.Argumentative forms belong to informal logic and represent a pragmatic structure that can be applied to natural language argumentation.In the field of legal argumentation,the type of argumentation plays an important role,and the shift of argumentation in legal interpretation requires the support of the type of argumentation,which constitutes the center of the logic of legal argumentation.Based on different argumentation structures,the types of legal argumentation are classified into linear argumentation structures,closed argumentation structures,convergent argumentation structures,and divergent argumentation structures.The evidence of criminal judgments needs to follow the argumentation structure of the main argumentation schemes and sub argumentation schemes.The application of the main argumentation structure mainly uses Toulmin’s argumentation schemes,while the application of the sub argumentation involves crime and non crime,this crime and that crime,and sentencing argumentation.In specific cases,the combination of various argumentation schemes is required.In criminal judgment,legal argumentation is carried out in the form of internal evidence and external evidence.Based on the evidence as a minor premise of legal facts and the evidence as a major premise of criminal law norms,internal evidence is inferred to arrive at the judgment result.Robert Alexy proposed innovative legal argumentation rules based on the theory of universal practical argumentation,which can provide us with theoretical paradigm guidance.It is an important task for us to combine the proposed argumentation rules with the current situation and experience of judicial argumentation in China,and to draw empirical rules that can guide judicial decisions.A good argumentation requires the internal guidance of argumentation rules,which also constitutes the prerequisite foundation of fair justice at the methodological level.The significance of the theoretical study of necessity lies in serving practice.Legal argumentation plays an extremely important role in the proof of criminal judgments,and it is necessary to follow certain rules in order for argumentation to truly play a guiding role in criminal trial practice.As a guideline for guiding the progress of argumentation,legal argumentation rules are the key to the standardization of argumentation,an important way to implement the basic principles of criminal law,and a foothold for the rule of law thinking in criminal judgments.From a static perspective,logical inference rules can provide a framework for argumentation activities,provide steps for argumentation that previously referred to conclusions,and promote the process of argumentation procedures and content through formal thinking.They have a deductive and constructive effect on the entire argumentation process.Specifically,it includes the priority of deductive reasoning,the strict applicable conditions that inductive reasoning should follow,the application standards and prohibitive rules of analogical reasoning,and the adequacy and neutrality rules of retroactive reasoning.From a dynamic perspective,the rules of debate dialogue and the rules of substantiality provide channels for improving the rationality and acceptability of judgments.The core of debate dialogue rules is to provide a rational communication platform for debate subjects,with the goal of achieving the standardization of inter subject debate.It includes the rules of separate and comprehensive proof of crime and punishment,the rules of presumption of innocence,the burden of proof,and the rules of open reasons for proof.Substantive factor proof rules provide assistance and modification for the application of legal argumentation from the perspective of content,including rules of burden of argumentation based on empirical rules,rules of reasonable inference based on common sense and common sense,and rules of balancing and integrating value judgments.We should follow comprehensive dynamic argumentation rules,master the applicable conditions and methods of various argumentation rules,and achieve effective and reasonable argumentation of judgments.The judgment is the embodiment of the trial result,which is the most direct way to let the parties know the reasons for winning or losing the case,and can help people clarify the judge’s interpretation and argumentation process of the reasons.The application of legal argumentation in criminal judgments requires not only the guidance of internal argumentation rules,but also external expression norms.The expression of the judgment should focus on the standardized format of the argumentation,achieve standardized reflection on the argumentation of the judgment,and optimize the structure of the argumentation of the judgment.The standard language expression of argumentation requires rigorous and accurate argumentation language,concise and plain argumentation style,and reasonable and appropriate argumentation rhetoric.Judgment argumentation should also attach importance to contextual factors,make good use of the unique thinking mode of the subject,fully consider the audience group in the context,and expand the advantageous space in the context to enhance the persuasive effect of legal argumentation,thereby improving the acceptability of the judgment result.