“同案同判”的性质及其证立理据

杨知文

PDF
Cite
Share

facebook

twitter

google

linkedin

January 2022

Article Contents

Citation: Zhiwen YANG. The Nature of “Treating Like Cases Alike” and Its Justification[J]. Academic Monthly, 2021, 53(11): 111-122. shu

The Nature of “Treating Like Cases Alike” and Its Justification

Zhiwen YANG

Abstract

“Treating like cases alike” is based on specific case trial and evaluation, and is committed to limiting and regulating the judicial discretion in complex cases. The rule of universalization establishes the basis for “treating like cases alike”, and its inherent position in general practice debate enables it to serve as the general grounds for supporting “treating like cases alike”. The public judgment attribute of justice makes judges take “treating like cases alike” as the essential judgment criterion, so as to ensure that the formation of judicial conclusions can not be based on personal preferences or arbitrary decisions without legitimate reasons. “Treating like cases alike” is also the organizational element or structural basis of justice, which has been stipulated in the judicial operation and the procedure of case judgment reasoning. Whether as a binding rule of judicial public judgment or as a constitutive rule of judicial activities, “treating like cases alike” has become a judicial obligation that judges should perform. “Treating like cases alike” has become a judicial obligation, not a legal obligation, but a special moral obligation closely related to the characteristics of judicial functions and judges’ actions. It is an important part of judges’ professional ethics.
- “treating like cases alike”,
- the rule of universalization,
- public judgment,
- judging according to law,
- judges’ professional ethics
References
Access
1. [1]
  Jie CHEN , Yidong WU . The Possible Conflict between the Housing Rights and the Rights to Public Services Availability in the Process of “Equal Rights between Buyer and Tenant”. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(2): 44-56.
2. [2]
  YAO Zelin . Professional Ethics in Sociology: The Origins of the Concept and the Reality in Contemporary China. Academic Monthly, 2024, 56(1): 127-140.
3. [3]
  Fei WU . On the Argumentation of the Empirical Laws in Criminal Judicial Decision. Academic Monthly, 2021, 53(11): 99-110.
4. [4]
  , . . Academic Monthly, 2016, 48(08): 81-91.
5. [5]
  Xuguang LIU . “Judgment of Perfect” in Aesthetic and Its End. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(6): 129-142.
6. [6]
  . . Academic Monthly, 2017, 49(03): 102-111.
7. [7]
  Zhenghan CAO , Pei ZHONG , Jing NIE . The Modernization of the Junxian State: How Does the Chinese Central Government Expand Its Function of Governance in Public Affairs. Academic Monthly, 2021, 53(9): 95-112.
8. [8]
  . . Academic Monthly, 2017, 49(11): 79-115.
9. [9]
  Siyou GE . On the Vacillations of Public Justification. Academic Monthly, 2020, 52(7): 14-23.
10. [10]
  Zhang Jiang , Habermas . . Academic Monthly, 2018, 50(5): 5-13.
11. [11]
  Wenjun DU , Chao CHEN . Introduction and Adjustment: Localization Construction of the Exemption from Natural Punishment. Academic Monthly, 2023, 55(1): 95-109.
12. [12]
  Jiming CAI , Minsi ZHENG , Mengxing LIU . The Criteria for Judging Whether China Economic and Social Development Plans are Scientific and Reasonable. Academic Monthly, 2019, 51(9): 46-56.
13. [13]
  Peng ZHAO , Yaowen XIE . The Ethical Dimension of Science-Technology Governance and Its Legalization. Academic Monthly, 2022, 54(8): 91-104.
14. [14]
  Jifeng CAI . The Knowledge, Experience and Translation of Foreign Court Etiquettes in Tongzhi and Guangxu Period. Academic Monthly, 2022, 54(4): 197-209.
15. [15]
  Minli NIE . Shi and Modern Public Intelecturals. Academic Monthly, 2022, 54(10): 23-32.
16. [16]
  . . Academic Monthly, 2016, 48(09): 13-14.
17. [17]
  Hongquan LIAN , Yufan SUN . Laboratory Experimental Evidences on Public Cooperation of Chaoshan Culture and Hakka Culture. Academic Monthly, 2023, 55(3): 67-81.
18. [18]
  . . Academic Monthly, 2017, 49(06): 83-98.
19. [19]
  . The Internal Logic of “Sharing Economy” and Public Policy. Academic Monthly, 2018, 50(04): 86-97.
20. [20]
  Xin GU , Qi ZHAO . The Government’s Functioning of Meta-governance in Public Innovation. Academic Monthly, 2023, 55(1): 69-80.

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Entire Issue PDF

Article Metrics

Article views: 619 Times PDF downloads: 8 Times Cited by: 0 Times

Metrics

PDF Downloads(8)
Abstract views(619)
HTML views(71)

Latest
Most Read
Most Cited

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

The Nature of “Treating Like Cases Alike” and Its Justification

Zhiwen YANG

Available Online: 2021-11-20

Abstract: “Treating like cases alike” is based on specific case trial and evaluation, and is committed to limiting and regulating the judicial discretion in complex cases. The rule of universalization establishes the basis for “treating like cases alike”, and its inherent position in general practice debate enables it to serve as the general grounds for supporting “treating like cases alike”. The public judgment attribute of justice makes judges take “treating like cases alike” as the essential judgment criterion, so as to ensure that the formation of judicial conclusions can not be based on personal preferences or arbitrary decisions without legitimate reasons. “Treating like cases alike” is also the organizational element or structural basis of justice, which has been stipulated in the judicial operation and the procedure of case judgment reasoning. Whether as a binding rule of judicial public judgment or as a constitutive rule of judicial activities, “treating like cases alike” has become a judicial obligation that judges should perform. “Treating like cases alike” has become a judicial obligation, not a legal obligation, but a special moral obligation closely related to the characteristics of judicial functions and judges’ actions. It is an important part of judges’ professional ethics.

HTML

Relative (20)

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Return

The Nature of “Treating Like Cases Alike” and Its Justification

Abstract

References

Access

Article Metrics

Metrics

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

The Nature of “Treating Like Cases Alike” and Its Justification

HTML

目录