166 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.2 2014 * 361005 D915.13 A 1674-1226 2014 02-0166-14 Object as Method: Rethinking of the Psychology Analysis in Judge s Fact Finding from Professor Zhu Suli s Speech on The Case of Pornographic Videodisc Lu Erqi Xiamen University Law School, Xiamen, Fujian 361005 Abstract It is suspicious to over emphasize the importance of certain reasoning methods such as context theory, concrete analyses on specific issues, or applying theories to real-life situations. On one hand, in terms of grasping the fact, an imaginary target set up by oneself for criticism will lead to the improvable result because of error or inexistence of assumptions or because of no causal relationship in the syllogism analysis or deductive reasoning; On the other hand, due to dogmatic, unreasonable concrete analysis and extremely widespread digression from the universal relation, it simply goes too far, which leads the truth being converted into fallacy. Method for method and criticism for criticism tends to become a research approach merely for formality. The research approach of emphasizing object as method is likely to be a fundamental prerequisite for psychological analysis in judge s fact-findings. Key Words Universal relation, Putative foe, Default proposition, Object as method, Legal fact *

2014 22 2 167 1 2 1 2012 2 2 1999 1

168 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.2 2014 3 4 5 3 Karl Larenz 1996 Karl Larenz 2003 2011 1 1998 2012 17 2 2002 13 1~13 2002~2013 3 2002 2012 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2000 1999 2003 2004 1 2 3 2006 2010 2011 21 2011 2012 2012 2013 21 2013 2009 4 2006 7 5 2003

2014 22 2 169 6 7 8 21 9 10 11 8 18 10 6 W. L. Twining, Pericles and Plumber-Prolegeomena to a working theory for lawyer education, 83 Law Quarterly Review 396, 1967. 12 2012 7 2000 11~39 8 K. Pearson, The Grammar of Science, London: A. & C. Black, 1911, p. 78. 2005 3 9 5 2013 9~10 10 2013 13 11 2014 1 8

170 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.2 2014 2001 29137 12 13 12 http://www.jcrb.com/zyw/n44/ca147846.htm 2008 4 18 2003 3 2004 122~157 13 2003 3 2003 3

2014 22 2 171 14 2001 1 2 3 14 2001 40 2003 3

172 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.2 2014 1 2 3 4,, 15 15 2006 10

2014 22 2 173 1 2

174 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.2 2014

2014 22 2 175 16 17 18 16 13 17 http://bbs.xuefa.com/thread-11079-1-1.html 2014 1 22 18 13

176 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.2 2014 19 20 21 22 1893 Gross 1847-1915 1906 23 19 2013 775 20 2011 12 21 2000 2007 2007 2008 2008 S C 2009 2010 2013 22 2007 2008 2013 23 2002 121 1981 11~12

2014 22 2 177 24 25 24 M 1 25 1922 1913 5 2007 209~210 1981 1988 1989 1989 1989 1981 1986 1986 1991 1998 1999 2002 2002 2002 2007 2009 2009 2012 2013 1935 1985 1986 1993 80~90

178 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.2 2014 26 2012 121 ( ) 27 deception promise 28 Fred E.Inbau 29 1966 30 gap problem 1996 A Richard A.Leo 30 9 45 122 2 30 78.29% 137/175 38 7 6 182 24.18% full confession 17.58% partial admission 22.53% incriminating statement 3/4 31 182 26 Lawrence S. Wrightsman 2004 27 2010 28 2010 4 29 1992 2008 2009 243-255 30 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 31 Richard A. Leo Inside the Interrogation Room 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1996, p. 276-280.

2014 22 2 179 4 25 5.62 2008 40 32 33 34 2012 1996 155 2012 186 1998 133 2012 198 1999 336 2012 439 35 36 37 38 2014-02-13 2014-04-20 32 Richard A. Leo, Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2008, p. 283 33 Steven A. Drizin & Richard A. Leo, The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World, 82 North Carolina Law Review, 2004. 2010 4 34 2006 155-160 35 1 36 2006 37 2009 38