Analysis The Several Questions Of Court Argumentataion

Wigmore points out,‘The study of the principles of Evidence, for a lawyer, falls into two distinct parts.One is Proof in the general sense,—the part concerned with the ratiocinative process of contentious persuasion, --- mind to mind, counsel to judge or juror, each partisan seeking to move the mind of the tribunal. The other part is Admissibility, --- the procedural rules devised by the law, and based on litigious experience and tradition, to guard the tribunal (particularly the jury) against erroneous persuasion. Hitherto, the latter has loomed largest in our former studies, has, in fact, monopolized them; while the former, virtually ignored, has been left to the chances of later acquisition, casual and empiric, in the course of practice.’1In the court practice and the legal education and research concerning court practice, the general sense of Proof is ignored. The vast and complex judicial rules could not provide a clear theoretical structure because we always take those wrong viewpoints existing in the theories for granted and apply them to theoretical research as truth to guide the practice. As a necessary stage of Proof, the research on court argumentations also falls into the trap of self-presupposition. Therefore, the emphasis on this dissertation is not to study the principles of Evidence or court inquiry rules, but to question the principles of inquiry. It is a theoretical research on inquiry in the most general sense, just as Wigmore’s conclusion that‘all the artificial rules of Admissibility might be abolished; yet the principles of Proof would remain, so long as trials remain as a rational attempt to seek the truth in legal controversies.’This dissertation will begin with the differentiation of two pairs of concepts:neutrality and panopticon; authority and trust. Then the following relations will be discussed further:court and truth, court and power,Also, According to the hermeneutic principles,this paper will be based on objective language communication principles discussed the basic principle of court trial.The structure of the dissertation will be as follows:Chapter 1 introduction; Chapter 2 reviews the theory of legal reasoning, introducing the concept of legal reasoning, and its content, purpose, method and significance. Chapter 3 analyzes the idea of neutrality. Chapter 4 mainly focuses on the theory of panopticon,which is the substitute theory of neutrality. Chapter 5 mainly focuses on the theory of trust, which is the substitute theory of authority. Chapter 6 argues that court should be independent and dependent from environment. Chapter 7 exposes the method of argumentations and the truth. Chapter 8 the languageof argumentations and the power of discursive .epilogue as the final chapter presents a conclusion of the whole dissertation.