On Study The Judicial Practice Of Legal Reasoning

Codefendant different sentence means the same or similar facts of the case have different verdict among different court, different judge, that is totally contrary to the requirements of the course of justice, weaken the credibility of the judicial and the authority of the law being challenged, and hinder the process of the rule of law in China. In recent decades, the phenomenon becomes stronger, attracted the enthusiastic attention of the public and media, and intense discussions, what causes the codefendant different sentence? Is it imperfect legal institutions or the unconscionable of the judicial officers? Through the analysis of specific cases, we can get that the reason is legal reasoning’s ignore and not skilled use by judicial officers. Through the theory of legal reasoning began to get attention in the country since the1980s and1990s, and make a series of achievements, but there is not too much research about legal reasoning in the judicial practice, such as how to use, what problem will appear in the process of using, how to avoid it. Because of this, in this paper based on the legal reasoning in judicial practice, sort out and introduce the development process and the importance of the legal reasoning, investigated how to build the legal reasoning in judicial practice, so as to explore the problems of the rule of law, and thus propose a solution.This paper consists of three parts. In the first part, proposed codefendant different sentence phenomenon, analysis Ting Xu and Peng HE case which a typical case, and find the problems; elaborate the status research at home and abroad and the importance of legal reasoning, explain the purpose of writing and basic ideas.The second part, due to the tendency of mainstream research and the traditional legal thinking in China, make use of deductive argument mode to analysis and build it, that is the "premise+premiseâ†'conclusion". NO.1, on the facts of cases. First of all distinguish the facts of the case and the fact, and secondly to explore how to determines the reliability and fully of evidence which is to confirm the facts of case, last to know how to get the facts of the case by examples; NO.2, legal norms. The first is dual analysis the structure of legal norms with propositional logic and normative logic, make specific legal norms applicable to the facts of the case more accurately, followed by exploration of some special circumstances applicable law and their solutions; NO.3, on legal reasoning conclusion. First, the facts of the case are clear, accurate applicable law, should be in accordance with the law the trial concluded, and secondly to clarify the judge should have the discretion in the conclusion of a trial in accordance with the law a penalty is applied to a specific case, finally arrive at the conclusions of the legal reasoning is combination between trial in accordance with the law and discretion.Third part, we hope to find out that the problem exists in the rule of law in China through the judicial practice of legal reasoning, for example, statutory law, judicial proceedings, judicial officers, to propose a solution based on description of legal reasoning, explain legal reasoning has an important role in our judicial practice and realization of the rule of law.