公開固然重要，說理更顯公正－－「公開三大平台」中刑事裁判文書公開之局

Reasoning Overwhelms Publicity in Respect of Univeiling justice: On the Limitation of Publicity for Criminal Judgment Documents on the Three Main Public Platforms

無論是強調對裁判進行監督還是主張對裁判進行研究，無論是針對法官職業化還是對職業共同體的形成，公開更多地表現為一種形式意義，並不意味著公正自洽。實證結果顯示，嚴重缺乏說理的裁決比比皆是，不僅地方法院的裁決如此，最高人民法院的一些刑事裁決亦是如此。缺乏說理導致裁決由於缺乏事實與規範的溝通從而淪為一種缺乏權威性的單純的暴力。刑事裁判必須進行說理的理由在於我們生活的世界是一個現象世界，沒有很好的說理進行溝通，則彼岸只是自在之物。說理又是一個邏輯推演的過程，選擇方法的正確性涉及到裁決的被認同的程度。對辯護意見缺乏歸納和說理，實際上對辯護一方的不尊重，導致裁判中立大打折扣。刑事裁決說理性的缺失阻遏了實踐與法學的通道。在司法實務與學術結合得比較好的表徵中，都是以判決的豐富說理性為依據的。在刑法學研究比較成熟的地區，刑法學理論恰恰就是由大量司法判例的說理進行提煉的基礎上發展起來的，由於裁判說理極具價值性乃至個性的色彩，往往會引起廣泛的討論，進而引發一系列的理論研究向縱深發展。Publicity is deemed as kind of formal meaning instead of just and selfconsistent， either when it is applied to emphasize the supervision of judgment process or judgment research， or when it contra poses judge professionalization or the formation of professional community. It has been approved by solid evidence that adjudications which are insufficient in reasoning are prevalent， even some criminal adjudications from Supreme Court， let alone those from local courts. Insufficient reasoning results in the adjudication descending to 'simple violence' without authority due to absence of the linkup between facts and rules. The reason why criminal adjudications need reasoning is that the world we live in is reasonable. Without moderate reasoning for communication， the reasonable world is just thinginitself on the opposite side. Reasoning is a process of logical deduction， the validity of choice shall be considered in degree of identity of adjudications. The insufficient conclusions and reasoning in defending opinion disrespect the defense party， which deteriorates the neutrality of adjudications. The insufficiency of reasoning in adjudications represses the tunnel linking the practice and the Science of Law. Criminal theory is exactly deemed to be developed both in scope and in depth on the basis of essential reasoning extracted from plenty of adjudications.