论文部分内容阅读
在《司法和国家权力的多种面孔》一书中,达马斯卡教授关于制度性安排的两组概念模型的提出[科层型权力组织与协作型权力组织;政策实施型程序与纠纷解决型程序]将那些涉及司法制度和政府治理的变量化约为一套便于掌握的范式,彰显出概念性研究的首要价值——功用性。而在《漂移的证据法》中,达马斯卡超越概念性研究转而专注于实证研究。其研究志趣从功用性转移到了真确性,然而研究方法却并没有改变。对概念性研究路径的依赖导致《漂移的证据法》之核心命题的构建失去了客观性。尽管如此,《漂移的证据法》依旧具有重要的指引意义,它提醒学术界应当注意概念性研究与实证研究之间的差别以及忽略这种差别所导致的诸多问题。
In the book “Various Faces of Judicial and State Power,” Professor Damasca presented two sets of conceptual models of institutional arrangements [bureaucratic and collaborative power organizations; policy enforcement procedures and dispute resolution Type procedure] to turn the variables involved in the judicial system and government governance into a convenient paradigm that highlights the primary value of conceptual research - utility. In the “Law of Evidence of Drift,” Damasca goes beyond conceptual research to focus on empirical research. His research interest has shifted from utility to truth, yet research methods have not changed. The reliance on a conceptual research path leads to the loss of objectivity in the construction of the core propositions of the Evidence of Drift Act. Nonetheless, Drift Evidence Act remains an important guideline, reminding academics of the differences between conceptual and empirical research and ignoring the many problems that such differences cause.