The Study Of Legal Rhetoric In Judicial Judgment

In recent years,Chinese scholars have become increasingly enthusiastic about the theory of legal rhetoric.However,any theoretical study should be based on practice,and the lack of practical legal rhetoric research is like a "castle in the air".The combination of theory and practice can promote the development of theory better.In judicial practice,the meeting between judgment and legal rhetoric makes the two of them complement each other.The application of the legal rhetoric in the judgment is not purely linguistic modification.Through the use of rhetorical argumentation and rhetorical techniques,it can enhance the rationality of judgment and enhance the acceptability of judgment.In the making of judgment,it can be made through the construction of the facts of the case and the choice of the application of the law,the application of rational persuasion,such three levels using of legal rhetoric to enhance the reasoning of the judgment,in order to gain the wide acceptance of the parties and the public.But everything has two sides.Due to the proper use of legal rhetoric,the reasoning of judgment argumentation is sufficient and the degree of acceptability is improved.However,due to the immature construction of the rule of law in our country,the misuse and abuse of legal rhetoric are inevitable in the process of application.It will not only damage the judicial authority,still can make substantial justice nowhere to be found.Therefore,in order to prevent the legal rhetoric from falling into the wrong rhetoric,it must grasp the necessary limits and not break the boundary of legal certainty.In order to prevent legal rhetoric from abusing to provide convenience for the law,the using of legal rhetoric in the judgment must adhere to the premise that the using of the legal rhetoric must follow the rules of rational argumentation.In addition,in the process of its application,We should stick to the three principles of necessity,suitability and moderation,so as to ensure the normal exertion of the function of legal rhetoric in the judgment.