On The Authenticity Of Judicial Fact And The Judicial Justice

The pursuit of truth is our tradition,Our belief is true to the facts, it seems that, with the real must be done until the persuasive. The traditional theory of exercising perfect self-cultivation and benevolent governance from the fact that the thinking mode of judicial process, that is a process of exploring truth. Judicial decision must be established in the truth finally. However, due to the nature of the case facts and understanding ability, real facts are not easy to get. How should the truth of judicial referee positioning? This is not only a confusion of judicial practice, and legal theory research should confront and resolve the issue.This paper is divided into four parts:The first part is the meaning themission of facts, the case facts, legal facts and judicial facts. In the ontology,facts is corresponding to the concepts, theories, the value subjectivity as an objective existence; In terms of epistemology,facts is to reflect the relationship between nature and the existence. The case facts is actual event based on ontology, in terms of epistemology, it is in dispute name when entering the field of litigation, according to the requirements of the law will experience after the fact, refining, that is needed. As a basic concept of law, the law fact should return jurisprudence is a kind of system, the fact, is the legal standard assumption. The fact is that the case facts into law after the formation of legal reasoning,it is the judge according to minor premise evidence for the facts of the case, judge the objectivity and subjectivity two attributes.The second part is theoretically discussed the authenticity of the facts. "True" in ontology and epistemology have corresponding meanings. We are in the majority of cases in epistemological sense using the concept of "truth". Then define the authenticity of meaning. In ontology sense, "truth" and "real" is the only, and objective. But in terms of epistemology, the fact is relativity and uncertainty,it is an object of inspection. Need authenticity. Then introduces the authenticity of the four theory: integrating theory, correspondence theory, effective theory, Implementation theory. In view of the different philosophy, "true" has different standard. According to the correspondence theory, the standard of truth that should be objectively. According to the effective theory, the standard is the real effect. Integrating theory about real standard are mainly "that sex" or "logical possibilities said." Based on this, This section discusses an argumen about our final legal standard facts objectively "real" or "legal",then to reflect this debate: Objective truth view is based on the theory of the truth of correspondence theory, if the application to the lawsuit fields, it exists theoretical dilemma and reality disadvantages; The real truth view of law belongs to integrating theory. "Integrating theory" overcome " correspondence theory " hidden object of different quality of subjective and objective of how to conform to the problem, with reasonable and realistic significance.The third part from the aspect of the judicial practice of objective reality that the influence of the facts. Rational basis of defining judicial facts is that the rational basis and experience. The necessity of the logical deduction in its role is limited, Inductive logic research is to support the conclusion mat is a probability of judgment. The substantive law is concerned, its connotation, after all belong to a life experience, with only a certain degree of probability. defining judicial facts is that the law is in the framework of facts to prove that the legal norms. And the facts is directly related to the authenticity of the legal system of the facts of reality suppression because of legal values. From the angle of value measure, realistic and safety, order, efficiency value may conflict. The subject of defining judicial facts is people. Judges, lawyers for the different status in the referee to the referee facts veracity and the influence of different level. Therefore, the judicial facts that may draw the conclusion of "not truth", and the conclusion may not belong to the category of crime.The fourth part discusses the relationship of the judicial justice and the authenticity of judicial facts. From the most ideal condition, objective reality judicial facts is the judicial referee fair basis. But the facts objectively get difficulty. Justice is divided into general justice and individual justice. Universal justice is the overall sense of justice, is abstract and generalization of justice. With the objective reality based on the fact that justice is a kind of specific, individual or case of justice. In the ideal realm, two kinds of justice is unified, the realization method in one case in the process of justice realizing its universal justice. But in reality, the two justice may be exist conflict. Unable to accomplish each case fact that meet the objective reality, so we can only through the procedure justice to realize universal justice. Finally, the paper discusses the substantive justice and procedural justice and the fact that the relationship of due process.