"Empirical Facts"in Judicial Adjudication

Generally speaking,the application of law in adjudication activities is a reasoning model of judicial syllogism,but in recent years,judges have paid more attention to "empirical facts".Under the end of "allowed the people to feel fairness and justice in every judicial case",it is necessary to discuss whether deductive reasoning can completely solve the problems in judicial practice and whether the reasoning mode in adjudication activities is so simple.Therefore,this article first conducts empirical research on typical cases,defines the "empirical facts" and their categories that affect refereeing activities."Empirical facts" are facts that illustrate the relationship between legal means and the attainment of an end or result.Based on the differences in their internal structures,empirical facts can be divided into two categories.One type of empirical facts illustrates the relationship between legal means and legal purposes,and the other type of empirical facts illustrates the relationship between legal means and the results of implementation.relationship.Secondly,combined with cases,this article further studies the function of "empirical facts" in refereeing activities.In some special cases,extra-judicial factors use the "empirical facts" as a medium to influence the judge's adjudication process.In order to understand its function,we must shift the context of the talk.From the perspective of practical reasoning,"empirical facts",as normative practical reasons,affect judges' adjudicative behaviors,and they may have normative conflicts with legal rules.This article sorts out the relationship between "empirical facts" and rules and principles,and advocates the establishment of normative levels to adjust possible normative conflicts.Again,and more importantly,this article studies the reasoning structure of "empirical facts".In refereeing activities,considering the influence of "empirical facts" on referee behavior is essentially a substantive consideration.In order to regulate the use of "empirical facts" and clarify the reasoning structure of "empirical facts",we need to conduct substantive reasoning.Think deeper.However,the existing legal reasoning model can not explain the substantial reasoning well.To this end,this article attempts to improve the existing reasoning model by referring to the "Toulmin structure" and introducing the "case-like judgment" model,and proposes Proven specific recommendations.At the end of the article,this article explains the outstanding issues.Looking back at the entire research process,under the question of "empirical facts",many issues such as the method of determining "empirical facts",determination criteria,and internal effectiveness conflicts need to be further studied.Beyond this issue,substantive reasoning involves more and more complex theoretical controversy,and these topics need to be left for discussion elsewhere.