Civil judgment how to do reasoning sufficient

In recent years, with the continuous promotion of judicial reform, the court's judgment system level is also improving. However, on the whole, the quality of the judgment from the public's requirements there is still a gap. To this end, the Supreme People's Court has requested that the pace of reform of the judgment be accelerated and the quality of the judgment be improved, and has issued samples of the judgment, putting forward high requirements for the production of the judgment, "enhancing the rationality of the judgment", "publicizing the reasons for the judgment", "making the judgment a document that can be presented to the public", "making the judgment a document that can be presented to the public", "making the judgment a document that can be presented to the public". "to make the judgment documents become a carrier to show the image of judicial justice to the public, and vivid teaching materials for legal education". Civil judgment is the people's court in accordance with the law to exercise the centralized embodiment of the right to adjudicate, is the most refined, the most complete summary of the entire litigation activities. It is not only the judge's business quality of an important basis for judgment, but also a measure of the quality of the case, publicize the judicial justice, reflecting the true meaning of the law of the judicial products. A good civil judgment, in addition to the requirements of the fact that the narrative is clear, the evidence to prove the fact that the evidence is strong, more importantly, lies in the reasoning of the full and thorough, so as to ensure that the results of the judgment is accurate, to ensure the correct implementation of the law. The civil judgment of the reasoning has become the focus of the current civil judgment reform.

One, China's civil judgment is not sufficiently reasoned performance

Currently, our country's judges produce civil judgment, there are a lot of civil judgment is not reasoned. Civil judgment does not make sense of all kinds of performance, summarized in the following aspects:

(a), the parties to the case, the defense is too general, abstract. Referee documents can not be complete and accurately reflect the reasons for the statement of the parties, some generalizations deliberately omitted the party's claims and reasons, and some even arbitrary misinterpretation of the reasons for the parties.

(ii), the fact that the part does not reflect the parties to the evidence, the court certified evidence and certification. The judgment does not list the evidence of the parties or not all listed, or although the evidence of the parties listed in the judgment, but did not write the relationship between the facts and evidence, the facts of the parties did not combine the two sides of the disputes, and the court's certification of the evidence to write. Admissible evidence does not explain the reasons for the non-admissible evidence does not explain the reasons or should not be admissible evidence to be admissible, should be admissible evidence is not admissible, out of context, arbitrary, perverse decision.

(3), the judgment reasoning part of the reasoning is not sufficient, not transparent, not comprehensive. Many judgments do not say reason, or although reasoning, but reasoning is not allowed, far-fetched, not for the litigants' claims and case-by-case analysis of the specific circumstances of reasoning, but listing the same type of case **** reasoning, habitually use some such as "no factual and legal basis," "" The evidence is solid and sufficient", "should be supported according to law" and other formulaic language; some of the party's claim that the reasoning is incomplete, only to choose its needs, select the part of the judgment in favor of the other part of the not mentioned or less; some of the reasoning is just a simple list of evidence and the law of the cumulative lack of analysis of the evidence to determine, no analysis of the views on the application of the law. There is no analysis of the legal application of the opinion, not to mention revealing the evidence - the law - the conclusion of the intrinsic connection between the three.

(d), the case process is not enough to explain. In the first part of the writing does not file time, court time, additional parties, trial period and other procedural aspects of the case, so that the case lacks transparency, can not fully reflect the process of the case.

Two, civil judgment full reasoning of the significance of reality

Judgment full reasoning can reduce the judge in the trial of unfair behavior, is conducive to preventing "behind the scenes transactions", "backroom operation" and other judicial corruption. Secondly, the judgment fully reasoning can improve the judge's own business quality, which can reduce the rate of unnecessary appeals to change the verdict; again, the judgment fully reasoning can make the judge in this field to fully draw on and use a large number of examples, jurisprudence, renowned scholars and other judges of the judgment of the opinion of the process of understanding of the case and the legitimacy of the judgment conclusion, and is conducive to change the dull " Eight-legged" style of writing, to adapt to the needs of the reform of the international judgment.

Three, civil judgments fully reasoned method

(a), the heart of the public, enhance the transparency of reasoning. The heart of the public, refers to the trial and judgment in the production of the judge, the judge based on the analysis of all the evidence and judgment and the formation of the heart of the conviction, including knowledge of the facts of the case and the legal insights, to the parties or in the text of the judgment in order to obtain the parties and the public's awareness, understanding and support. The heart of the public in the civil judgment in the following aspects: the formation of the public judge certification process. Certification process is in fact the judge with their own knowledge and experience of the case through the trial to make a judgment on the evidence, and for their own pre-perception and judgment of the conclusion of the process of giving reasons, it is a legal reasoning process, but also for the process of legal interpretation. Specifically, that is, the judge in the judgment publicly display their own legal reasoning and legal interpretation of the authentication of the opinion, openly show the judge's rational judgment of the evidence and the reasons for the choice, published by the specific content of the evidence, and the objectivity of the evidence, relevance, legitimacy of the analysis of the evidence, so that the evidence to form a ring, step by step, step by step to promote the chain of the evidence of the power. In addition, the evidence is not accepted should also be rejected on the basis of reasoning, indicating that the evidence found with the results of the judgment has a logical connection. The judge certified the process of public, reflecting the form of the judgment of justice, as well as the credibility of the facts found in the judgment.

The public judge of the party's defense claim support and denial of the reasons. Civil litigation is centered around the parties to start the defense claims. However, in civil trials are not the interests of the parties are reasonable, the reasons for the defense are justified, on these issues, the judge in the production of the judgment should not be avoided, and should be clear and openly support or deny the parties to the litigation claims of the heart of the process, to explain the reasons and the basis. In addition, for the parties to the direction of the trial or the status of the doubts and misunderstandings should also be reflected, the judge's views on these issues and reasons to eliminate the parties' doubts and misunderstandings, and improve the parties and the public's trust in the judgment.

Disclosure of the judge's reasons for the outcome of the judgment. To prevent the parties to give the feeling of surprise referee, the judge in the text of the judgment, the results of their own judgment must be open to the public heart process and reasons. First, the judge is arguing that the parties to the claim, the focus of the generalization is appropriate; Second, the evidence is admitted layer by layer analysis and argumentation of the judge is convinced of the facts of the heart, fully reflecting the evidence, questioning, authentication of the whole process; Third, the analysis and argumentation of the reasons for the application of the law. In short, the heart of the public prompted the judge to do its best to argue the reasonableness and legality of the judgment, enhance the transparency of the judgment, prompting the parties to accept the judgment to rest. At the same time, the judge on the fact that the reasons for the judgment in more detail, the greater the degree of openness of the heart, the more can reflect the results of the judgment of the reasons for the fullness of the judge's discretion and arbitrariness will be more limited, thus improving the reasonableness of the results of the judgment and legality. In addition, the openness of the heart witness is also conducive to lawyers, the parties and the public supervision of the judge's judgment behavior, thus prompting the judge to be more conscientious and responsible, fair judgment.

(2), on the matter of reasoning, enhance the credibility of the judgment. On the matter of reasoning, is to analyze the focus of the dispute between the parties, to distinguish between right and wrong. The focus of the dispute is built on the basis of the facts of the case, and the facts of the case is the basis of the results of the judgment. Therefore, the focus of the dispute is not allowed to grasp, will not be able to clarify the facts, the facts are not clear, the fact that the authentication part will be wrong, there are false, there are contradictions, and unclear facts as the basis for making a judgment conclusion, will affect the judgment conclusion of the correctness, fairness, legitimacy, reasonableness. The analysis of the focus of the controversy, including two aspects: one is able to clear the focus of the controversy, mainly refers to the fact that can be proved by the evidence; the second is unable to clear the focus of the controversy, mainly refers to the evidence of the two parties are unable to prove the truth of the facts. But either way, the judge must be based on their own evidence of the situation and the relevant provisions of the law for analysis and argumentation. Specific operation is: one is based on the party's claim and evidence, summarize the focus of the controversy, distinguish the core focus or general focus, is a focus or more focus; Second is closely linked to the focus of the controversy, the parties in the trial, the evidence, questioning, authentication, debate on the specific content of a thorough analysis, accurate judgment, revealing the nature of the case and the sharing of responsibility of the intrinsic links; Third, the parties to the focus of the controversy Third, the parties to the focus of the rights claimed, based on comments, indicating that support or not adopted, and explain the reasons; Fourth, the focus of the controversy can not be argued that the truth is unclear, the judge should be based on the principle of allocation of the burden of proof, arguing that the party with the burden of proof can not be proved, the party shall bear the legal responsibility of losing the case. Fifth, the focus of the analysis of the controversy, to strengthen the analysis of the evidence and the fact that the logical relationship and inevitable connection between the embodiment of the "preponderance of the cover" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof, so that the facts, the reasons for the text of the coherent and unified, integrated, so as to enhance the quality of the case, the judge should be based on the principle of distribution of the burden of proof, the party with the burden of proof can not prove, should bear the responsibility of losing the case. The whole, thus enhancing the credibility of the judgment.

(3), according to reasoning, enhance the persuasive power of the judgment. If the matter is the reason for the sinews, then the reason for the soul of jurisprudence. It can be seen, "reasoning" is in fact based on the connotation of the legal provisions of the analysis of the matter, elaboration of jurisprudence. Specifically contains the content:

The application of the law to explain. "Everything in advance is established, not in advance is abolished", the law is more so. The legislator always analyzes the facts of social life according to the prediction of the need for the law and then legislates. Therefore, the process of judges applying the law is actually the process of judges interpreting the law. It is the duty of the judge to interpret the law in accordance with his sincere understanding of the law when it is applied to individual cases. The judge's duty is to comment on the facts of the case and to judge the merits of the case in accordance with the guidelines of the law. At the same time through the interpretation of the law, so that the abstract provisions of the law to become concrete, to become practical and effective, so as to reveal the connotation of the law and the actual facts of the case between an inevitable, intuitive connection between the parties to the claim, who is right and who is wrong, at a glance.

To make up for legal limitations. Changes in social life, the emergence of new things, the relatively stable law is always difficult to cover the new situation in real life, new things, which brings the legal gap or the limitations of the law. Therefore, the judge in the legal interpretation, not only to elaborate the connotation of the existing law, but also to use their own profound legal theory, scientific way of thinking, rich working experience and ability to analyze and make judgments, revealing the meaning of the law has not yet been found to make up for the limitations of the existence of the law. This kind of legal interpretation to make up for the limitations of the law, mainly through the axioms of the law or the law of the doctrine, creed, is also a kind of jurisprudence. In short, jurisprudence is the link between the facts of the case and the outcome of the judgment. In the judgment on the law of the fuller reason, the more the parties and the public believe that the justice and authority of the judgment livestock

(4), according to the feelings of reasoning, enhance the affinity of the judgment. "Love", from the point of view of social life is "emotion", is a generalization of human feelings; and from the point of view of legal life, is "understanding", is the judge according to the case, the specific legal behavior of the parties on the basis of the law. According to the case, the judge of the specific legal behavior based on the principles of jurisprudence, social moral norms for rational analysis and judgment, resulting in a public opinion, in line with social order and morality of the recognition. This recognition is the result of the judge's interpretation of the law, is also a reflection of the judge's inner conscience. Therefore, in the judgment, the judge should not only talk about the reason, talk about the law, but also to talk about the reason. Facts is the judgment of the cornerstone of justice, jurisprudence is the judgment of the building of justice, reason is the judgment of justice of the luminous monument. It can be said that the matter of fact, jurisprudence, sense of reasoning to form a strong vitality of the judgment. Sense of reasoning in the judgment embodied in the judge is a generous, open-minded, full of sense of mind, but also the best show of judicial credibility. The reason why, because "reason" is not a legal norm, the judge can not intuitively feel from the legal provisions of its existence, the judge is relying on enlightenment, relying on the spirit, to sense it, to understand it, with the heart to find its existence, to find the essence of it, to grasp its temperament. Therefore, in the judgment to reason and can not be arbitrary. In the author's view, reasoning, mainly for the following cases: (1) the law is not complete, not clear, the judge should be based on the true meaning of the legal provisions reflected in the words, or the purpose of the legislator to understand, analyze, judge, and to make clear the reasoning; (2) defective provisions of the law, should be from the understanding of the object of the background, including culture, traditions, ideas, etc., within a certain range, and in accordance with the value orientation of the principle of justice, and to make a decision. In accordance with the principle of justice in the value orientation of reasoning; (3) according to the situation requires, emotional analysis. At this time to clarify the rationale, mainly from the social order and morals, human affairs, social fairness, justice and other aspects of analysis and reasoning. But for whatever reason, the reasoning should reflect the following content: First, in line with the law, that is, in line with the spirit of the law; Second, in line with the people's sentiments, that is, the embodiment of the socialist human affairs; Third, in line with the need for justice, fairness, fairness, and reasonable value orientation. In short, reasoning through, said Ming, both enhance the credibility of the judgment, and enhance the affinity of the judgment. Author Unit: Jiangdu City, Jiangsu Province People's Court