A Research On Consequence-oriented Judicial Method

The process of the administration of justice generally follow the deductivereasoning to carry out, in accordance with the rule of law, the facts, the conclusionthat judicial conclusion, this approach must be based on justice law published prior tothe referee, and the results will be more judicial conclusion deterministic. But in thespecific case, there are missing or ambiguous legal rules, untimely, when such justiceapproach also appears stretched. In consequence oriented justice, not against the rulesand rule, which requires a judge in the face of one case when the first thing to do is toseek to adapt to the rules, especially in simple cases, only when the rule of law doesnot provide for cases when the guide, the judge allowed it to use in the administrationof justice. In consequence oriented justice predict in advance to allow the judgeapplies the judicial consequences that may arise as a rule, even among severalpossible consequences to compare options, and finally determine the applicable lawjudge rules in order to improve the referee Conclusion acceptability. Firstly, in orderto show the different styles of the two cases two referees ideas or style, that is typicalof deductive reasoning and the consequences-oriented justice, and the advantages anddisadvantages of the two are compared, and finally to the consequences oriented theconcept of doing justice to explain. Meanwhile, semantic analysis of the firstconsequences of the judges may be a desire to exclude.Secondly, the article respondsto critics on the form of the rule of law in the administration of theconsequences-oriented justice of three questions. First, in the form of the rule of lawargued that the consequence oriented justice is oriented west exotic, it may bebeneficial to the West make up for deficiencies in the rule of law in its already matureform of the rule of law in society, but do not apply in China. Second, in the form ofthe rule of law argued that consequence oriented justice, because of the need to seekresources outside the law judge at the referee, the referee so this way the rule of lawitself does not have a concept. Third, in the form of the rule of law argued thatconsequence oriented justice within the scope of the substance of the rule of lawthinking, its desirability also need proof. Of course, with consequences orientedjustice theory itself is not perfect, therefore, the article in response to the threequestions on the form of the rule of law were after, they turned to their ownimprovement. As Alexis thought, legal argument can be divided into internal and external argument argumentation, internal arguments seeking legal rules, the externalargument is seeking more resources outside the law.In order to make the judges inseeking outside legal resources to warrant unconscionable, results they need to replacethe rule of law, we need to legalize the judicial conclusions demonstration. Forlegalization argument, the article introduces a consequentialist argument McCormick,from justice to an acceptable reason to examine the consequences of the test, and theintroduction of open justice Mechanism.