Behind the fierce confrontation of views is the expectation of social progress. ...

Recently, a poetic judgment has aroused concern and debate on the Internet and offline. The incident originated from a court's judgment on a divorce lawsuit. The verdict not only quoted classical poetry, but also used a long lyric language. In the end, it was decided that divorce was not allowed.

There are different opinions about "poetic judgment". Those who agree that the law should also be full of warmth, while those who oppose it think that an irregular judgment may affect the credibility of the law. Is there a contradiction between dharma and poetry? Is the law heartless or is it just human feelings?

Not recommended, but occasionally it doesn't hurt.

Yang Lixin (Director, Research Center of Civil and Commercial Law, Renmin University of China)

The controversial issue of "poetic judgment" is mainly the writing of the reasoning part of the judgment document. The so-called reasoning is the process of explaining the law and why such a judgment is made on the basis of finding out the facts.

In other words, the reasoning part is actually the logical part of the whole text of the judgment, connecting the preceding with the following. The above is the factual part of the case, and the following is the verdict. Its function is to tell the parties why they made such a ruling, and what is the legal relationship? How do judges or collegiate panels analyze and judge, and how do they handle legal relations?

Generally speaking, this part should be clear about what laws and regulations apply based on the facts of the case and why. Such reasoning may include the opinions of some judges and collegiate benches, including the understanding and interpretation of the law, which is subjective to some extent.

In modern times, this part has some different ways. For example, if there are no specific legal provisions to follow, it will explain what habits to follow, and if there are no habits, it will explain what jurisprudence to follow. In the judgment documents at that time, we can often see the subjective expression of judges.

After the founding of People's Republic of China (PRC), such expressions no longer appeared. After 1980s, the writing style of judgment documents has changed, and the judgment reasons have been strengthened. In the early 1990s, China put forward that the court should have sufficient reasons for judgment, especially after the new century.

For decades, the writing of judgment documents has been constantly changing. Now the referee documents are getting longer and longer. On the one hand, the part of sorting out facts becomes more specific; On the other hand, the disputed issues between the two sides have been sorted out and expressed more clearly; On the other hand, reasoning becomes more detailed. In recent years, some subjective expressions have gradually appeared. This controversial judgment can be said to be the climax of this case, which contains a lot of personal judgments, personal emotional experiences and many moral exhortations.

Is this possible? I think it is ok to do it once in a while, but we must grasp a degree. First of all, the judgment document is an official document with certain literariness, which is really conducive to persuading the parties and making reasoning smoother and more acceptable. On the other hand, if it is too literary, it may also make the judgment documents lose their seriousness. In the process of judicial trial, I sometimes add a little subjective element to the writing of judgment documents, which will make the judgment documents more vivid and convincing. But it won't be much, because once it is overdone, it may hurt its seriousness.

Different people have different views on the writing of judgment documents. Some people think that emotional words and expressions should be abandoned as much as possible, while others think that any concept of non-legal terms should not be used. Of course, some people think that it is understandable to allow subjective expression appropriately. These different ideas have been used in the past practice, and it is hard to say which is better.

I have three judgments about the reasoning part of the judgment document. First of all, it is part of the official document. Second, it is ok to bring a little subjective vocabulary appropriately. Third, we should be moderate.

Many people are worried that subjective writing will have adverse consequences and make the law lose credibility. I don't think it will go that far. Of course, if it goes too far, it will really reduce the severity. It is not impossible to have words of encouragement and discipline, but it is not good to write words of encouragement.

So, what is moderation and how to deal with it? This is a specific operational problem. I think a little, a sentence or two is enough, and there is no need to do more.