同案同判:法律义务还是道德要求

发布时间：2018-01-25 15:07

本文关键词： 同案同判同等情况同样对待融贯性公共性保护合理预期正义应以可见的方式实现　出处：《中国法学》2013年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：法律实践中的一个悖论是:一方面,司法裁判受到同案同判的拘束;另一方面,某些情况之下的特殊对待又被认为是合理的。要想化解这个悖论,必须仔细考察同案同判的基本性质。至少有两种同案同判的主张,其中的"强主张"认为,同案同判是不可摆脱的法律义务,因此只有在证明"表面上相似的案件并不是真正同案"的基础上,才能给予特殊对待;而"弱主张"认为,同案同判只是可被凌驾的道德要求,只要能够证明同案同判被其他的法律义务和道德要求所压倒,那么就可以给予特殊对待。通过考察同案同判的支持性理由,将会发现:同案同判的"弱主张"具有明显理论优势,所以同案同判只是可被凌驾的、与法律有关的道德要求,它本身并不是一项无法摆脱的法律义务。
[Abstract]:A paradox in the practice of law is: on the one hand, the judicial decision is bound by the co-adjudication; On the other hand, special treatment under certain circumstances is considered reasonable. In order to resolve this paradox, we must carefully examine the basic nature of co-adjudication. There are at least two kinds of co-adjudication claims. One of the "strong claims" that co-adjudication is an inextricable legal obligation, so only on the basis of proof that "seemingly similar cases are not true co-cases", can be given special treatment; However, the "weak claim" holds that the co-adjudication is only a moral requirement that can be overridden, so long as it can be proved that the co-adjudication is overpowered by other legal obligations and moral requirements. Then we can give special treatment. By examining the supporting reasons of co-adjudication, we will find that the "weak proposition" of co-adjudication has obvious theoretical advantages, so co-adjudication can only be overtaken. A moral requirement relating to law is not in itself an inextricable legal obligation.
【作者单位】：中国政法大学法理学研究所;
【基金】：“中国政法大学校级人文社科研究项目”的资助
【分类号】：D916.2
【正文快照】： 虽然“同案同判”很少被视为司法活动的基本原则,但由于它关系到普通民众是否被给予公平对待的切身感受,而成为不可忽视的司法要求。身处裁判之中的某人,在面对与自身情境相同或类似的已决裁判时,往往要求被给予同样的对待;他们同样也会因为没有被给予同样对待,以此为理由来对

【参考文献】