Factual Inference In Legal Reasoning And Its Critical Question

The process of ascertaining the facts of a case is the basis of litigation activities.Vertically,it can be divided into the stage of investigation and prosecution,the stage of cross-examination of proof by both the prosecution and the defense in court and the stage of judges forming judgement.Horizontally,it needs to be proved from evidence to fact,which is manifested in the requirement of sufficient evidence in the adjudication and the clarity of the facts of the case.In the model of legal reasoning,the demonstration of the facts of a case is mainly embodied in the conclusion that the facts of a case are derived from the evidence set on the premise of the evidence set.Facts are considered to be objective,so why does the facts of a case need to be demonstrated and why can they be obtained through demonstration? Why can evidence be used as the object of argument to prove the facts of a case? What is the main task of factual argument in the process of evidence proving the facts of a case? Which kind of logic and method is more suitable to demonstrate the facts of a case,and what is the concrete embodiment of the logic and method in the factual argumentation? This paper focuses on these three directions.Firstly,it discusses the essence and manifestation of facts,analyses the position of factual argumentation in the complete legal reasoning model,and emphasizes that the argumentation of case facts should receive the same attention as the argumentation of law.Secondly,it analyses the essence of evidence and how to use Wigmore's theory of evidence to explain how evidence can prove the facts of a case and solve the qualification problem of evidence as the object of factual argument.Next,it is the feasibility problem,that is,the main task of factual argument in the process of proving facts of a case by evidence.Specifically,it takes the three nature of evidence as the core of argument.Through the demonstration of the legality,authenticity and sufficiency of evidence,it shows that the evidence meets the requirements of proving the facts of the case.In other words,the facts of the case can indeed be deduced from the evidence.The third part is the question of which logic and method is more suitable for the argumentation of case facts in legal reasoning,comparing the difference between formal logic and informal logic,combining with the characteristics of legal activities,it is concluded that the reasonable argumentation concerned by informal logic is more suitable for the analysis and solution of the part that identifies the case facts in legal reasoning,and also explains why the preceding article is authoritative.It is appropriate for Ermore's evidence theory to explain the relationship between evidence and fact.Finally,it is the concrete embodiment of the application of informal logic in factual argumentation.From the perspective of evidence,it lists the critical issues that may be put forward in factual argumentation to strengthen argumentation and improve the quality of argumentation.