On Judicial Consequences:Based On Consequence-oriented Judicial Method

The main content of this paper's research is the consequences of the judgment that is the basis of the consequence-oriented judicial method.The practice of relying on the consequences of judgments to assist in the trial is called a pragmatic trial or a consequence-oriented trial.Its purpose is to rationalize legal judgments,or to pursue more social,political,and economical aspects.Although this theory has received attention from academic circles in recent years,it is not new in the judicial realities of our country.In theory,the “unification of legal effects and social effects” that reflects the results-oriented thinking has been a judicial policy for more than a decade.In practice,in some well-known cases with extensive influence,it is not difficult to see such a judgment that considers the consequences,and the research on the outcome-oriented method has great theoretical and practical significance.The first question faced by the outcome-oriented theory is: what are the consequences of these decisions and how they exist in the current judgment.The so-called conclusive consequence refers to the consequences of the judgment,but when the outcome of the judgment becomes one of the factors that influence the judgment of the judge,it does not actually occur,but exists as a reasonable prediction.The consequences of the verdict include both immediate and case-by-case consequences as well as long-term and systematic consequences.The former include the consequences of the parties involved in the case,and the latter,for example,the influence of policies in the same kind of cases in the future,and the influence on social ethics,ect.It can be better illustrated through influential cases such as "Nanjing Child Abuse Case" and "Peng Yu Case".In addition,there is a clear stratification of the consequences of judgments,rather than juxtaposed.The most pressing pressure on judges is the current public and political consequences,followed by individual and even social consequences.This is actually an act of putting the cart before the horse.Overemphasis on the influence of public opinion and politics on the judiciary will easily lead judges to fall into an unduly irrational position in the judicial process.