情理推斷在刑事證明中的規範運作，以事實證成理論為分析框架

情理推斷是以經驗知識為前提的推論，其在司法證明中的作用是必要但危險的。我國現行印證證明模式中並沒有包容情理推斷的空間，但其卻在實踐中隱性運作，同時因缺少約束機制而易於導致權力濫用甚至恣意裁判。為化解合法性與正當性危機，有必要規範情理推斷在司法證明中的運作。然而，傳統印證證明理論的外部視角，無法描摹司法證明的全貌，可以引入一種內部觀察視角作為補充。司法證明在結構上是包含價值判斷的論證式經驗推論，事實認定因而具有似真性。在似真性證明的制度語境中，情理推斷作用於從證據命題推導出案件事實的證明過程之中，輔助裁判者認定並證成對事實的確信。在該事實證成的理論分析框架中，情理推斷的規範運作需要以認知開放的競爭性論辯程序為場域，以包容性的證明方法體系為前提；為防止權力濫用，還應給裁判者施加事實證成義務。

"Experiential inference is necessary but dangerous in judicial proof. China’s criminal justice system is meant for pursuing the accuracy of judicial fact-finding, where there is no room for experiential inference. However, experiential inference has been broadly used implicitly and probably arbitrarily in legal practice, which results in both the legality crisis and the legitimacy crisis. Therefore, it needs to be controlled legally. However, the corroboration theory is restricted by an external perspective that the judicial proof could not be holistically established. Fact-finding justification offers a normative theory from an internal perspective. The judicial proof, in nature, is an argumentative inference which is meant for a plausible and justified fact-finding outcome. Experiential inferences, together with relevance, are used for drawing inferences from evidentiary facts to elemental facts, and then justifying the found fact that judges are convinced of. China shall embrace an adversarial process in order to enlighten professional judges’cognitions. Most importantly, to prevent from arbitrariness, judges shall execute the duty to justify the facts that he/she finds morally plausible."