227

The first side, the cognition of the case in its immediate singularity, and its qualification, contains, in itself, no adjudication. It is a cognition such as belongs to every cultivated human being. Insofar as, for the qualification of the act, the subjective moment of the insight and intention of the agent (see Part II) is essential, and the proof concerns, in any case, not objects of reason or of abstract understanding, but only particulars, circumstances, and objects of sensuous intuition and subjective certainty, and thus contains within itself no absolutely objective determination, the ultimate factor in the decision is subjective conviction and conscience (animi sententia), just as, with respect to proof resting on the statements and assurances of others, the oath is the, admittedly subjective, but final, verification.

With regard to the subject under discussion, it is a chief matter to keep in view the nature of the proof at issue here, and to distinguish it from cognition and proof of another kind. To prove a determination of reason, such as the concept of right itself is — that is, to cognize its necessity — requires a different method than the proof of a geometrical theorem. Further, in the latter case, the figure is determined by the understanding, and already made abstract in accordance with a law; but with an empirical content, such as a fact is, the material of cognition is the given sensuous intuition, and sensuous subjective certainty, and the stating and assuring of such — upon which, then, the inferring and combining from such statements, testimonies, circumstances, and the like, is active. The objective truth that emerges from such material, and from the method appropriate to it — a method which, in the attempt to determine it objectively for itself, leads to half-proofs, and, in a further, truly consistent development which at the same time contains within it a formal inconsistency, to extraordinary punishments — has a quite different sense from the truth of a determination of reason, or of a proposition whose material the understanding has already determined abstractly. To show that the cognition of such empirical truth of an occurrence lies within the properly juridical determination of a court — that there lies in this a peculiar qualification for it, and thus an exclusive right in itself, and necessity — constituted a chief point of view in the question of the extent to which the judgment both on the fact and on the point of law is to be ascribed to the formal juridical courts.

DE

Comments

One response to “227”

  1. Eduard Gans (Additions) Avatar
    Eduard Gans (Additions)

    There is no reason to assume that the legal judge alone should establish the facts of the case, since this is a matter for general education as such and not for legal training alone: the assessment of the facts of the case proceeds from empirical circumstances, from testimonies about the act and similar observations, but then again also from facts from which one can infer the act, and which make it probable or improbable. What is to be attained here is certainty, not truth in the higher sense, which is something wholly eternal; this certainty is here the subjective conviction, the conscience, and the question is: what form should this certainty receive in court? The demand for a confession on the part of the criminal, which is usually found in German law, has this much truth in it, that thereby satisfaction is given to the right of subjective self-consciousness; for what the judges pronounce must not differ from what is in his consciousness, and only once the criminal has confessed is there no longer anything alien to him in the judgment. Here, however, the difficulty now arises that the criminal can deny his guilt, and thereby the interest of justice is endangered. If, then, the subjective conviction of the judge is to hold good instead, a further harshness occurs, in that the human being is no longer treated as a free being. The mediation, then, consists in the demand that the pronouncement of guilt or innocence should be given out of the soul of the criminal himself — trial by jury.

Leave a Reply