论文部分内容阅读
本文对苏力《窦娥的悲剧———传统司法中的证据问题》一文提出商榷,主要观点是:1.在元杂剧《窦娥冤》中,桃杌把窦娥判斩并不如苏文所说“是在可能的条件下做出”的“基本合乎情理的判决”;2.在法庭上,原告张驴儿的陈诉并不比被告窦娥的申辩更可信;3.即使在古代,窦娥在刑讯逼供下承认“药死公公”也不能称为“证据之王”;4.窦娥的冤案不是由于科学技术不发达造成的。文章提出,在进行“法律与文学”的研究时,务必要注意二者的区别,切勿步入误区。
The main points of this paper are: 1. In the drama “Dou’e Yuan”, Peach Blossom is not as good as Su Wen “In the court, the complainant Zhang donkey’s case is no more credible than the defense of the defendant, Dou E; 3. Even in ancient times, Dou’e confession under torture confession ”drug dead father“ can not be called ”king of evidence“; 4. Dou E’s injustice is not due to underdeveloped science and technology. The article suggests that in the study of ”Law and Literature", we must pay attention to the difference between the two, do not step into the erroneous zone.