The Study Of Active Rhetoric In Judicial Decisions

The reform of judicial documents is one of the hot spots of current judicial reform. There are active rhetoric and passive rhetoric in rhetoric. Centered on the active rhetoric in judicial decisions, this article discusses some basic theories and practice problems.This article is divided into six parts.The first part introduces the research background, current situation and deficiencies. At present, the study on the judicial decisions from passive and active rhetoric has had some results, although not many. The study on the active rhetoric in judicial decisions is even less, and in-depth research is lacked. Therefore, the systematic study on the active rhetoric in judicial decisions is necessary. In addition, basic concepts in this article are defined by comparison in this part.The second part discusses the function of active rhetoric in judicial decisions from three aspects. The application of active rhetoric in judicial decisions can make the language more vivid and easy to be understood by the audience, and will strengthen audience’s judicial decisions identity and acceptance through emotional communication, and is a good way to make up and repair the damaged social relations to promote the social effect of law.The third part summarizes the application occasions and strategies of active rhetoric in judicial decisions, combined with specific cases of ancient and modern, and judicial decisions of Chinese and foreign. The active rhetoric in judicial decisions is mainly used in civil cases, difficult cases and the occasion of informal source of law. There are three main application strategies. The first one is to use various figures of speech to enhance judicial decisions language’s power of persuasion and appeal. The second one is to pay attention to the emotional communication and resonance with audience. The third one is to use diverse social resources like ethics idea, folkways and customs, policy etc. in judicial decisions writing.The fourth part makes an evaluation on active rhetoric in judicial decisions, and distinguishes its legitimate form and illegimate form. The legitimate forms of active rhetoric in judicial decisions are proper literary expression, harmony of emotion expression and scenery depiction, remarkableness of emotion expression and reason explanation, and moral exhortation. The illegimate forms of active rhetoric in judicial decisions are distortion in fact description, abuse of moral discourse, focus shift of controversy, and emotional pressure.The fifth part focuses on the illegimate forms of active rhetoric in judicial decisions, puts forward three principles to limit the application of active rhetoric in judicial decisions:the principle of necessity, the principle of relevance and the principle of moderation. According to the principle of necessity, the use of active rhetoric should consider the real necessity of judicial decisions expression, and distinguish the occasion strictly. The principle of relevance requires that the use of active rhetoric should match judicial decisions’overall style, fit the content what wants to express and the effect what to achieve, and ensure the internal coordination of active rhetoric. The principle of moderation requires that the use of active rhetoric should be limited in a moderate range and fully consider audience’s feeling. Also, the use of active rhetoric shouldn’t pay attention to emotional expression instead of taking law as criterion and shouldn’t let emotion out of control.The conclusion part carries on an overall summary of this article. This part emphasizes that we should take dialectical view of active rhetoric in judicial decisions, and must give active rhetoric in judicial decisions with necessary restrictions to avoid damaging the justice and authority of law.