巩寒冰

（中国政法大学刑事司法学院，北京 100088）

【摘 要】在南昌大学原校长周文斌受贿案中，其机械使用概率论解释质疑控方证据的做法，存在严重错误，由此引发了关于概率证据理论的一些思考。虽然英美证据理论研究中，占统治地位的对证据和证明过程的描述是概率性的，但艾伦教授认为数学世界与人类事务世界之间可能并不相似。在进入大数据时代的今天，司法实践对于精确性和可操作性的需求，由量化带来的对证明责任和当事人主张的清晰表达，以及对证明过程提供的规范性指引，都刺激了大量的试图使用概率性理论解释审判过程的某个方面的论证尝试。然而，在概率性语言试图描述证据及证明活动时，检察官及辩护律师谬论、结合悖论、相关性悖论等认识错误的出现却带来了对事实认定活动与概率理论之间矛盾冲突的反思，或者说并非是对概率性理论的批判，而是对法学理论家们就概率性理论的特定使用的批判。

【关键词】检察官/辩护律师悖论 ；结合悖论 ；相关性悖论

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2016）02-0233-13

Paradoxes in the study of probabilistic evidence theory. Gong Hanbing. Criminal Justice College of China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088.

【Abstract】In the bribery case of Zhou Wenbin, former President of Nanchang University, there is a serious error in the mechanical use of probability theory to explain the practice of questioning the prosecution evidence,which led to some rethinking about the probability of evidence theory. While in the Anglo-American theoretical research, the dominant theory of the evidence and proof is probabilistic, but Professor Ronald J. Allen believes that it may not be similar between the mathematical world and the world of human affairs. In era of Big Data, the judicial practice demands the accuracy and the operability by bringing quantization to the parties’ burden of proof and advocates, as well as the normative guidelines of the proof process. It has stimulated a lot of trying to use the probability theory to explain some aspects of the reasoning of the trial process, but in probabilistic language, when trying to describe the activities of evidence and proof process, prosecutors and defense lawyers fallacy, conjunction paradox, relevance paradox brings the conflict between fact findings and probability theory, or that it is not a criticism of the theory of probability for fact findings; but to criticize the law theorists’ particular use of probability theory.

【Key Words】Relevance paradox, Prosecutors’/defense lawyers’ fallacy, Conjunction paradox