本篇论文目录导航：
【题目】我国审判实践中法律推理运用缺陷探析
【第一章】司法审判中法律推理问题研究引言
【第二章】司法实践中法律推理的概述
【第三章】司法审判中形式法律推理及其存在的问题
【第四章】实质法律推理的介入对形式法律推理的补正
【参考文献】审判实践中法律推理的完善研究参考文献
摘 要
近年来，随着司法改革的步步深入，人们的法治意识也在不断加强，法律推理在司法审判中的地位也越来越受到大家的关注。无论是中国还是外国的专家学者对法律推理的研究与讨论都越来越深刻，但是由于人们文化背景的不同，思想方式的不同，国家的制度建设不同等，其对于法律推理的理解也就不同。
法律推理是一种逻辑思维活动。它具有实践性、逻辑性、正当性、辩论性等特征，这就是法律推理与其他的逻辑思维方式所不同之处，正是由于这些特征的存在，而使法官在运用法律推理进行裁判时，能够使判决更加具有合理性，更加具有说服力。所以这就需要法官在司法审判的过程中，合理的运用法律推理，给自己的判决一个合理的理由，使审判的结果更加的公正。而我们也应当看到，在这个千变万化的社会中，法律具有其相对稳定性的特征，而法律规则不可能把每一个个案都规定到，因此，在遇到上述这种情况时，法官就需要完善自己的判决思路，运用法律推理，从法律规则中提炼出法律原则，在维护司法权威性的前提下，理性的解释法律，从而实现司法公正。
大多数学者认为法律推理的过程是形式法律推理与实质法律推理的结合，既有形式合法性的外在诉求，又有实质合理性的内在追寻。在长期的司法实践中，形式推理是人们从许多推理形式中归纳出的比较完备的逻辑思维工具，是法官进行司法审判的必不可少的思维方法。形式法律推理，是法律推理中必要的组成部分，具有稳定性、确定性和可预测性的特点，能够使人们有意识、有目的的控制自己的行为，从而遵守法律规则，不凌驾于法律之上。但是，任何事物都具有两面性，法官在审判的过程中如果仅仅运用形式法律推理是不科学的，因为形式法律推理有其不可避免的缺陷，具有僵硬性，缺乏说理的功能。同时，疑难案件的客观存在、规则适用的客观要求，各种新事物、新情况不断出现，使得法律推理所涉及的因素变得越来越多，不能再仅仅通过形式法律推理对于司法实践中的案件进行判决。还需要运用实质法律推理对其进行补充，使案件的判决结果更加的公正。当然实质法律推理涉及价值，它更多的适用于一些复杂的案件，当形式法律推理对其没有规定或者规定不明确或者各规定之间相互冲突时，就要通过实质法律推理来进行判决。追求法律对当代社会的适应性，追求司法判决的正当性，承认法官的自由裁量权，弥补成文法的先天不足，促进司法公正。
在我国，法官在判案时要运用法律推理的思维方式，但是这并不是强制性的，并没有通过立法规定为法官的义务。除此之外，我国的判决书也存在很大的问题，说理性过于简单，往往几句话就概括完，很难具有说服力。我国判决书的一般流程是：先列举法庭认定的主要证据，然后提出相关的法律条文，最后就是法院的判决结果。这很难让当事人心服口服。笔者认为，应当对我国的判决书格式进行相应的修改，对于说理的部分增强。还可以通过一些强制性的手段将法律推理规定为法官的义务，使法官能够在头脑中自觉地把论证过程转化为判决书中条理清晰、论证严密的法律论证。
关键词：法律推理 形式法律推理 实质法律推理 判决书
Abstract
In recent years, with the increasing people's awareness of the rule of law and judicialreform step, legal reasoning, more and more people's attention. Experts and scholars at homeand abroad for a broad and deep discussion of legal reasoning, because the legal reasoning ofthe content are different, scholars have different interpretations of legal reasoning.
Is the specific subject of legal reasoning in the practice of law, the use of logic thinkingmethod, combining the legal and factual material known, Furthermore, demonstrated thatlegal decision thinking activities. It has a practical, logical, legitimacy, debates and othercharacteristics of this legal reasoning is different from the other logical way of thinking aboutit is because of the presence of these features, and when the judges in the application of legalreasoning in the judgment and make decisions more rationality, more persuasive. Of course,the law has stiff and hysteresis characteristics of, and also has a certain vagueness in legallanguage, which would make the deviation of the judges in the application of the law will,cannot come to the correct decision. While the judge's legal reasoning, looking for legalgrounds for judicial decisions, openly courts judicial process to the public, so as to make thecourts more equitable. Law is stable, society is ever-changing, legal rules cannot apply to eachspecific case. In this case, the judge's legal reasoning shall be used, extracted from theexisting rules of law legal principles to safeguard judicial authority under the premise, rationalinterpretation of the law, in order to achieve fairness and justice.
Most scholars believe that the process of legal reasoning is a form of legal reasoning andsubstance reasoning combining both forms of legitimacy of external demand and internalpursuit of substantive rationality. In judicial practice in the long term, formal reasoning is thatpeople from many forms of reasoning inductive logic of complete tools is essential for judgeson judicial thinking. Formal legal reasoning, is a necessary component of legal reasoning, ithas the characteristics of stability, certainty and predictability, can make people conscious,purposeful control their behaviour, so as to comply with the rule of law, not above the law.
But every coin has two sides, the judge in the trial process if only used in formal legalreasoning is unscientific, as formal legal reasoning has its inevitable flaws and rigidity, lack ofreasoning functions. Meanwhile, the objective requirement of objective existence of difficultcases, the rules applicable, all kinds of new things and situations are constantly emerging,factors become more and more involved in legal reasoning, can no longer be had by purelylegal reasoning for the decision. Legal reasoning, it must be worth, must pass substantivelegal reasoning on judgments obtained formal legal reasoning to be supplemented to make itmore fair. Substantive legal reasoning to be able to break the shortsightedness of legalreasoning in the form of defects, more attention to legal values. Substantive legal reasoningon the substance of the law and the facts of the case for the appraised value of the reasoningand, in many cases, is to choose between conflicting interests. Pursuing legal adaptation to thecontemporary society, the pursuit of judicial legitimacy, acknowledged the judge's discretion,to compensate for the deficiencies of statute lawAnd promoting judicial justice.
In China, the judge's legal reasoning has not been current law for judges to the statutoryobligation. Judges make judgments often seem overly simplistic, sometimes just a shortdescription: rehearse the Tribunal found that the main evidence and relevant legal provisions,and finally is on the Court's verdict. Such a high-level overview of the decision, or lack ofreasoning analysis it is difficult to convince the parties of the case. Therefore, China shouldadopt legislation reasoning for the trial judge's legal obligations under the law and through thejudicial document reform for judges to be spontaneously in the mind's legal reasoning,rational thinking, consciously transformed into judgment with the clear, rigorousdemonstration of legal argument.
Key Words: Legal reasoning Formal legal reasoning Substantive legal reasoningThe judgement
目 录
中文摘要
英文摘要
1 引言
1.1 选题背景与意义
1.1.1 选题的背景
1.1.2 选题的意义
1.2 国内外的研究现状
1.2.1 国内研究现状
1.2.2 国外研究现状
1.3 研究方法与创新
1.3.1 本文研究方法
1.3.2 本文创新点
2 司法审判中法律推理的概述
2.1 法律推理的定义、特征
2.1.1 法律推理的定义
2.1.2 法律推理的特征
2.2 法律推理的功能
2.2.1 法律推理的证成功能
2.2.2 法律推理的预测功能
2.2.3 法律推理的弥补漏洞和法律续造的功能
2.2.4 法律推理的解决社会争端和社会控制的功能
2.3 法律推理的意义
2.3.1 法官运用法律推理是司法性质决定的
2.3.2 法官运用法律推理是司法公正的要求
2.3.3 法官运用法律推理是司法民主的要求
3 司法审判中形式法律推理及其存在的问题
3.1 司法审判中形式法律推理的必要性及其适用情形
3.1.1 司法审判中形式法律推理的必要性
3.1.2 司法审判中形式法律推理的适用情形
3.2 司法审判中形式法律推理类型
3.2.1 演绎推理
3.2.2 归纳推理
3.2.3 类比推理
3.3 司法审判中形式法律推理存在的问题
3.3.1 形式推理具有僵硬性
3.3.2 形式推理缺乏说理的功能
4 司法审判中实质法律推理的介入对形式法律推理的补正
4.1 司法审判中实质法律推理的必要性
4.1.1 疑难案件的客观存在
4.1.2 规则适用的客观要求
4.1.3 形式法律推理的局限性
4.2 司法审判中实质法律推理的适用情形
4.2.1 法律疑义
4.2.2 法律反差
4.2.3 法律漏洞
4.2.4 法律冲突
4.2.5 “恶法”
4.3 司法审判中实质推理的形式
4.3.1 基于法律原则的实质推理
4.3.2 基于公平正义观念的实质推理
4.3.3 基于政策的实质推理
4.3.4 基于法理的实质推理
4.3.5 基于合理性的实质推理
4.3.6 基于立法精神与目的实质推理
4.4 司法审判中实质推理的合理性及意义
余论 法律推理的良好运用--判决书
参考文献
后 记
