On The Significance And Application Of The Theory Of Legal Reasoning In Judicial Trial

Legal argumentation theory is the latter half of the twentieth century, the emerging field of study of legal methodology, which involves a wide range of content to accommodate a multi-disciplinary theories. Domestic and abroad for the theoretical study of legal argumentation is still in the stage of development and improvement, legal argumentation theory has not yet been systematic and systematized, and is still not mature enough, and in judicial practice is less to be reflected.Argumentation is such a process by pointing from the grounds to the conclusions, and legal argumentation has two kinds of narrow and broad meaning. This thesis adopted the narrow sense, which is the legal reasoning of judges in the judicial process, which is the parties and other participants in the proceedings of law argumentation obtaining a reasonable judge. There are three kinds of legal reasoning and argumentation paths and models:formal logic, rhetoric and dialogue. Formal logic to deductive reasoning as the core, focusing on the logic of argument the validity of the basic model of legal argumentation; rhetorical use language designed to enhance the effectiveness of the table so as to achieve the purpose of argument and rhetorical methods of theoretical models are:Perelman's "new rhetoric," Toulmin's argumentation model and study the topics Viehweg method. In different contexts, the using of rhetorical devices is different. The method of dialogue is a relatively new model of legal argumentation, which as a legal argumentation in order to discuss procedures for the process by setting to discuss the substance of the standards and criteria to constrain the form of legal reasoning. Representatives of Approach to dialogue are Habermas and Robert Alexy in Germany. Alexy on distinction between legal argumentation in the internal and external card into the card into the system discussed in the context of dialogue under the rules and patterns of legal argumentation and the theory of the most sophisticated and norms. This thought, logic and rhetoric can be included in the dialogue is being directed.Legal argumentation on the activities of the administration of justice has important implications:First, the legal arguments can make up for legal interpretation and legal reasoning of the lack of judicial process to prevent the chaos and arbitrary. Legal interpretation and legal reasoning are the most frequently used methods of traditional legal methods, but they are difficult to overcome the limitations of its own:the legal interpretation of its interpretation need to demonstrate the reasonableness of the approach roads, the legal reasoning does not reflect the trial, the parties involved. Second, the legal argumentation can promote the formation of a consensus to raise the acceptable degree of sentence. Litigation as a dispute resolution process, dispute the two sides of the dialogue can be an ideal scenario to reach a consensus to promote the smooth settlement of disputes. Finally, legal argumentation can promote the realization of procedural justice. Legal argumentation reflects the requirements of procedural justice, and the process of legal argumentation will meet the need of legal procedures for participants.The outcome of the legal theory applied to the justice process and used to guide judicial conduct and judicial reform and improve the justice system is extremely meaningful. Theory of legal reasoning in the application of the judicial path consists of three aspects:first, the law required proof theory, the trial of openness and arguments, which can promote the participation of the main multi-trial to ensure that their legal rights. Second, the legal argument in the trial can ensure the rights of the participants on the basis of speech, so Anglo-American adversary system of trial model of the country can be learnt by us, thereby to configure the rights and obligations of the parties. Third, making judgments. Making judgments on the outstanding problems in our courts is proof enough. This can be both logical and rhetorical dimensions under review. Logically, judgment rule of law and the facts of the case should be consistent with the premise of deductive reasoning, the size of the request, and the process of reasoning should be logical and effective style. In the rhetoric, the judgments of the rhetoric is not only modified, and it has played a very important function for persuasion.