Legal thinking is the core of legal method. In the lecture on Basic Laws of Legal Thinking given by Professor Zheng to Foshan two-level courts, the definition of legal thinking is: the so-called legal thinking refers to the way of thinking that observes, analyzes and solves problems according to legal logic in the process of public and private decision-making. [2] The legal thinking of legal person is based on the judge. Judges are lawyers with professional training, legal professional skills and professional ethics. An excellent judge should not only have excellent quality, solid professional theoretical foundation and rich judicial practice experience, but also have a highly technical and rational legal person thinking concept. Judges are regarded as rational professionals. He or she first thinks according to legal rules, typical rational public rules. His or her thinking characteristics mainly focus on the analysis of norms and the legitimacy of the distribution of rights and obligations of the parties. It is a way of thinking that conforms to the logical rules of legal norms analysis, judicial experience analysis and micro-perspective analysis. [3] is practical rationality under certain experience conditions, with the characteristics of knowledge thinking and common sense thinking. [4] This is a practical reason. The unique way of thinking of a judge reflects the professional skill level of a qualified judge, which is the necessary quality for obtaining the qualification of a judge and the guarantee for the inheritance of the professional ethics of a judge.
Regarding the basic rules that should be followed in legal thinking, Professor Zheng summarized them into six points in the Basic Rules of Legal Thinking: first, the rule that legality is superior to objectivity; Second, procedural justice is superior to substantive justice; Third, formal rationality is superior to substantive rationality; Fourth, the rule that universal justice is superior to individual justice; Fifth, the rule that reasons take precedence over conclusions; Sixth, the rule that the analysis of rights and obligations is the logical clue of legal thinking; [5] Professor Lv Zhongmei believes that judges' professional thinking has five characteristics: transformation, balance, regularity, procedure and certainty. [6] Some scholars have summarized legal thinking as "independent thinking", "conservative thinking" and "respecting the law". [7] The views of the above scholars reveal the characteristics of legal thinking from different aspects. Generally speaking, legality, neutrality, passivity and conservatism are the basic principles and inherent requirements that legal thinking should follow. Legal thinking is to observe, think and judge by using legal terms, and to make careful logical analysis and reasoning around evidence through procedures. It is the professional activity of legal person under certain experience conditions. Its purpose is to find a just and reasonable judgment reason in a case that conforms to the current law, to reason within the legal discourse system, to influence the social interaction through the judge's judgment, and finally to realize the discourse hegemony of legal language in modern society.
As a "legal person" who has been engaged in grass-roots civil trials for a long time, although he has to make judgments on countless disputes in the name of law every day, there are still many mistakes and loopholes that deviate from legal thinking through the eyes of scholars to reflect on his thinking of judging cases for more than ten years. The thinking inertia caused by repeated simple cases and a lot of routine work, the pessimistic legal quality of the parties and the high legal transaction cost determined by the legal environment of heterogeneous villages limit the cultivation and implementation basis of modern legal thinking habits of grass-roots civil trial judges, and the blindness and confusion of thinking caused by the lack of rational training and the sublimation of experience and intuition in judging behavior, which makes it difficult for us to explain our reasons for judgment in the gap between vast legal rules, complex and changeable social life and vague evidence facts. Legal rules embody a kind of universal justice, and case adjudication needs substantive justice. It is precisely because of our lack of legal rational thinking ability that there is often a deviation between universal justice and substantive justice of cases, which makes it difficult for some referees to be abnormal. Just like the conclusion drawn by Qiang Shigong and Zhao Xiaoli in "Legal Interpretation under Double Structure-An Investigation of Eight Judges in China", at present, in China's judicial practice, a considerable number of judges' consciousness of judging cases has not yet awakened, and the professional thinking mode of legal persons has not yet formed [9].
First, the realistic formula of judge's thinking.
When a case is submitted to the court, the general parties claim their rights according to the simple concept of right and wrong. Not only are the facts confusing, but their authenticity needs to be examined, and the applicable legal rules also need to be explained and discovered by judges. Jerome Frank, an American jurist and judge, put forward the mythical formula and realistic formula in the judgment when studying the reasons for the judge's judgment. The mythical formula refers to r (rule of law) ×F (fact) = d (decision). The realistic formula is S (the stimulus around the judge and the case) ×P (personality) = D (judgment). [10] The mythical formula is the goal that the referee should pursue, the standard that the referee should strive to achieve, and the realistic formula is the realistic result of the referee. The closer the realistic formula of the judge's judgment is to the mythical formula, the higher and lower the degree of judicial justice is. The distance between this realistic formula and the mythical formula depends on the rationality of the judge's thinking.
In the process of handling the following case, there are complex divergent opinions, which reflect different thinking trajectories. The author believes that through reflection and comparison, we can find out the shortcomings and improve the level of judicial practice in China.
This is a typical fake marriage registration case. Defendant B and the outsider are sisters and look alike. On April 23rd, 2002, the father of Respondent B issued a certificate of unmarried marriage status for the marriage between Party B and Party C in the village committee of Ren Xiang, Renshou County, where Party B lived. This certificate is used for the marriage registration of Party B and Party C on May 3, 2003. Party B's sister Ding has not reached the legal age for marriage. In order to get married with Applicant A in this case, on August 22nd, 2003, the father of Respondent B came to the village committee with Party B's ID card again to issue the unmarried marriage certificate of Party B and Applicant A, and on August 29th, 2003, Party B and Applicant A registered their marriage with the civil affairs department of Chengdu High-tech Zone with the second unmarried certificate. In order to make the second marriage legal, except that the marriage registration files of B and C were greatly revised, during the whole litigation process, Ding took B's ID card and responded as B. (The ID number of B in the marriage files of B and C is false, and the birth date of B in several forms is contradictory, with obvious traces of forgery and revision; The signatures and photos of "B" in the marriage files of Party B and Party C are different from those of Party B and Party A, the former photo features are consistent with the photos of Party D in the marriage certificates of Party C and Party D, and the latter is consistent with the respondent himself. The defendant "B" who appeared in court denied that he had ever registered marriage with c). During the trial of this case, Respondent B submitted a certificate that the marriage registration between Party B and Party C was declared invalid by a township people's government in Renshou County during the litigation of this case, and a marriage certificate that Party C and Party D registered to get married during the litigation of this case. In essence, the identities of B and D have finally been completely interchanged. It is also found that B was born on April 28th 198 1 year, and E Dingmei was born on March 28th 1984. There is only one natural person named B in a township in Renshou County, Sichuan Province. Applicant A requests that the marriage between Party A and Party B be declared invalid on the grounds that respondent B is bigamy.
The gist of the court's judgment is that it is impossible to determine whether "B" registered with C in this case and "B" registered with Applicant A in this case are the same natural person, so it is impossible to determine that the respondent in this case and Party B, as a natural person, have constituted a crime of bigamy, and there are no other circumstances about invalid marriage in this case. Therefore, according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the first paragraph of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC),
There are serious differences in the determination of facts in this case. The "S" factor in Judge Jerome Frank's realistic formula has negatively disturbed and stimulated the judge, resulting in a deformed thinking track.
The court found that B's father had used B's ID card to issue two certificates of marital status, one on April 23, 2002 and the other on August 22, 2003. These two certificates are actually used for marriage registration between B and C and between B and A. Regarding the question of whether the two unmarried certificates are used by Party B to register marriage with different people, there is a view that because the marriage registration files of Party B and Party C have been tampered with and the contents are untrue, the respondent denied that he had registered marriage with Party C. Moreover, the signature and photo of Party B in the marriage files of Party B and Party C are different from those of Party B and Party A, and the applicant has insufficient evidence to prove that it is registered with Party C. Based on the premise that the first unmarried certificate has not been fraudulently used, he concludes that the second unmarried certificate is illegally issued. Inference cannot be used as the basis for determining the facts of a case. For the above reasons, the first marriage cannot be considered as a real marriage between B and C, and bigamy of B does not constitute it. Therefore, the applicant's request should be rejected.
Even if we put aside the purely theoretical question of whether inference can be used as the basis for determining the facts of a case, the confusion of thinking shown by the above viewpoints is obvious. First of all, it is a basic fact, not an inference, that the first unmarried certificate was used to register the marriage between Party B and Party C. It is another inference that the first unmarried certificate was fraudulently used (that is, it is presumed that the respondent who came to respond with Party B's ID card is Party B, because the identity materials of Party B and Party C in the marriage file are inconsistent with those of the respondent B-it is inferred that the first unmarried certificate was fraudulently registered in Party C. Secondly, this assumption and inference lack factual basis (because the unmarried certificate clearly states that it is used for Party B and Party C). Unless C doesn't know his fiancee B at all, who can marry C with his fiancee's unmarried certificate? And what is the reason for this fraudulent use? )。 According to the fact that B and C registered marriage once, we can draw a reasonable conclusion that B's second unmarried certificate was issued illegally, while forcibly denying the basic fact that B registered marriage with her fiance C with the unmarried certificate issued by his father, and then taking the conclusion that conforms to the normal thinking law as an inference, we are caught in a strange circle of nihilism and circular inference.
Second, analyze the "S" factor with legal rational thinking, and carry out factual presumption and legal presumption in line with cognitive laws, ordinary people's social experience and common sense.
Inferring facts that conform to cognitive laws, ordinary people's social experience and common sense is an indispensable means to identify the facts of a case. In judicial practice, especially in the trial of civil cases, it is not common that the facts of a case can be directly identified and judged according to one or several pieces of evidence listed by the parties. Generally speaking, both the offensive and defensive sides will cite a large number of various evidences, which have various relationships with each other, such as intersection, contradiction, coincidence, overlap, continuity and correspondence. Judges must use the rule of experience to make logical deduction and analysis, and then make decisions one by one. This process is the presumption of facts. Presumption of fact, also known as presumption in judgment or litigation, is opposite to presumption in law. It is a judicial principle in essence that legislation gives judicial organs the right to exercise discretion, that is, the right to evaluate evidence freely, so as to adjust the specific operation state of the burden of proof and decide whether to ascertain the facts. [1 1] embodies the idea of concrete analysis of specific problems, flexible combination of objectivity and legality, and organic interaction between evidence facts and objective facts, which is the thinking activity of judges shuttling back and forth between general rules and case rules. Judges in western countries with developed legal systems often adopt the method of fact presumption when trying cases. It is a comprehensive quality, which integrates the judge's legal theoretical basis, social experience, logical analysis ability, insight into the essence of things and judicial knowledge. When inferring facts, judges must adhere to the requirements of conscience and justice and make inferences that conform to logical rules, sense and jurisprudence. The presumption of fact does not require that it must be true and verified. According to the theory of demonstrative reasoning and rational reasoning in Mathematics and Conjecture by mathematician George Polya, the case argumentation of jurists belongs to rational reasoning. Rational reasoning is a method of inductive logic reasoning, which is first of all a kind of reasoning that provides a basis for hypothesis, but also a kind of probabilistic reasoning with unstable conclusion. That is to say, "the conclusion of reasonable reasoning is risky, controversial and temporary (of course, it does not rule out that sometimes the truth can be deduced)" [12]. The clarity of reasonable reasoning can never win the same recognition as deductive argument. In real life, the verification of a large number of facts and the solution of doubts are inseparable from open-close reasoning. Our understanding of many things is often based on reasonable basis, but it does not need to be confirmed, let alone the possibility of confirmation. [ 13]
As far as this case is concerned, there are many places where judges need to make reasonable factual inferences based on common sense of social life. If there is no evidence to the contrary, it should be presumed that B's father holds B's ID card to prove that B and C are aware of their unmarried marital status, and this certificate has indeed been used by B; If the unmarried marriage status of B used to marry B and C proves that the purpose has been achieved, that is, it is indeed used for marriage registration of B and C, it should be inferred that B used the certificate to register marriage with her fiance C, rather than making assumptions out of thin air; If Party B cannot prove that the marriage registration with Party C has been declared invalid or revoked according to law, or that Party B has divorced Party C, or that Party C is declared missing or dead, it shall be presumed that there is still a legal and valid marriage relationship between Party B and Party C; When the marriage relationship between Party B and Party C still exists legally, if Party B's father holds Party B's ID card and issues Party B's unmarried marital status certificate again, it shall be presumed that the certificate is illegal and untrue; According to the fact that Father B used his ID card to issue a certificate again, and the contents of the certificate were used by Father B in this case to get married with Applicant A, it should be presumed that Father B knew and was an accomplice in issuing false certificates. If there is no evidence to prove that Party A is still willing to marry Party B knowing that Party B has registered with Party C, and Party B and Party A use Party B's false unmarried certificate for marriage registration, it shall be presumed that Party A has been deceived by Party B and does not know the fact that Party B is married. According to a village in Ren Xiang County, Renshou County, the unmarried certificate was not carefully examined, and the documents issued were random (in March 2004, the certificate was issued to confirm that the marriage of Party B and Party C was legal and valid, and in June, the marriage registration of Party B and Party C was declared invalid without any reason), so it was reasonable to suspect that the management of Ren Xiang in Renshou County was not standardized and that the marriage registration files of Party B and Party C might be tampered with; According to the kinship between B's father D and B's sisters C and D (born in 1984, 14 March), if you want to marry A as soon as possible, you need an identity that has reached the legal age of marriage. It is certainly more convenient and safer to use her own sister's identity. Chengdu High-tech Zone is more economically developed than Ren Xiang in Renshou County, so it is necessary for D to use her sister's identity to get an effective marriage. According to the fact that the signature and photos of "B" in the marriage files of B and C are different from those of B and A, and the characteristics of their photos, the marriage registration of B and C was declared invalid for no reason during the litigation period, and C and D re-registered their marriage during the litigation period, it can be inferred that Ding registered his marriage with A under the guise of his sister B, and the fake marriage under the guise of name was based on the kinship between B, B's father, D and C.
Accordingly, there are many deviations when discussing the fact determination of this case. For example, according to the fact that the marriage files of B and C have been tampered with and the ID number of B is false, it is presumed that the unmarried marriage certificates of B and C issued by B's father with B's ID card may be fraudulently used-a hypothetical inference contrary to common sense. The normal inference should be that B tampered with his marriage file for some purpose, and the reasons and possibilities for outsiders to tamper with B's marriage file and use B's identity to register marriage with C are not sufficient; The first unmarried certificate may be fraudulently used, so it cannot be considered that B's second unmarried certificate is illegal and false-a circular inference based on false facts. The correct inference is that it is illegal and false for B to issue an unmarried certificate again when B's first marriage has not been proved to be divorced, invalid or revoked. There are many places where the marriage registration files of Party B and Party C have been tampered with, and Party B's unmarried certificate may be fraudulently used, so it is impossible to determine whether the first marriage between Party B and Party C really exists-a false inference that denies the objective facts. The correct inference is that the marriage registration between B and C, and the marriage between B and C is valid. The marriage between B and C is uncertain whether it really exists, and the marriage between B and A is not bigamy.
In fact, legal issues are not only legal judgments, but also moral or just judgments and value judgments. Whether a certain reasoning is rational or not sometimes needs to be judged by the cognitive laws of ordinary people. In this case, the marriage between Party A and Party B was identified as a fake marriage in name only, which is in line with the understanding and judgment of ordinary people.
In the course of the trial, this case also involves a legal presumption, that is, the legality review of the trial procedure. It is believed that Ding registered marriage with A in the name of B, and it was Ding who appeared in court instead of B, which inevitably involved the identification of the identity of the parties appearing in court and the legality review of the trial procedure. The author believes that the main management means of citizenship in China at present is ID card. To a certain extent, the judge can infer that the person concerned is the individual proved on the ID card by virtue of his legal and valid ID card, so it is neither feasible nor necessary to ask the judge to deeply identify the ID card and its holder. In this case, the respondent holds B's ID card, claiming that it has B's legal status, and the applicant has no objection to this. The judge can infer that the respondent appearing in court is B, and make a judgment accordingly, without studying the true identity of the natural person status of the party appearing in court. This legal presumption is the presumption that falsification is allowed, that is, rebuttal is allowed. Legal thinking is actually carried out in a series of fictional facts and inferences. "In the judicial field, it is not an accidental phenomenon to draw conclusions based on fictional facts, but the normal state of justice ... The older the judiciary is, the more it emphasizes respecting objective facts and drawing conclusions based on objective facts, while the more it develops to modern times, the more it relies on fictional facts ... In the modern legal system, fictional facts have developed into legal technology and become the routine basis for judicial decisions." [656] In this case, when the procedure is carried out to a certain extent, it is found that the identity of the parties (including the possible appearance of the original defendant) has been fraudulently used, and the consequence is not to overthrow the judicial procedure that has already been carried out, but to change the direction of the judicial procedure, that is, to inform the real B to participate in the lawsuit and D to withdraw from the lawsuit. Although the procedure that has been carried out is based on the wrong facts, the advancement of the procedure itself is still legal. Ding fraudulently used the identity of B to register marriage with A, which is the result of the trial, but it is not the basis for the legal advancement of the procedure.
Third, discover the "R" factor of myth formula —— On the legal appraisal of analytical specimens.
The process of judging a case by a judge is the process of legal discovery. Laws are made by the legislature and the organs authorized by the legislature. The main content of the law created by legislators is legal rules, which is "a summary of the same elements in the judgment of some limited and specific types of cases". The judge's task is to discover and find out the relevant laws of the case to be solved in the sea of Wang Yang with legal provisions, and at the same time individualize the laws of * * * in the process of solving disputes through legal procedures. Professor Chen believes that the best mode of rule of law is legal reasoning in the process of law application, but for difficult cases (or most cases), direct legal reasoning is almost impossible. Statutory law does not include ready-made answers to solve crimes, and even the simplest legal determination must be handled by the judge's thinking. Only when the judge re-understands the law in the interactive relationship between law and facts can he construct the judgment norms applicable to individual cases. In a society ruled by law, when judges apply law to solve disputes, they should first find and discover the law in its formal origin. Only when the formal legal source obviously deviates from the legal value or is unclear, can we seek the help of informal legal sources. Under the rule of law, if a judge can make legal reasoning on a case, he can't use the narrow legal interpretation method. Only when it is difficult to make legal reasoning directly and explain clearly can he apply the value supplement method of loopholes. [ 15]
There are four kinds of invalid marriages stipulated in the current marriage law: (1) bigamy; (2) Having a kinship that prohibits marriage; (three) suffering from diseases that are medically considered unsuitable for marriage before marriage and are not cured after marriage; (four) under the legal age of marriage. The personal situation of this case does not meet the conditions for declaring marriage invalid as stipulated in the current marriage law. When the characteristics of a case do not conform to the basic pattern of legal norm design, the judge's task is not to refuse the judgment or return the contradiction to the society, but to continue active legal discovery activities until the case judgment norm and reasonable and legal ruling basis are found out. In this case, the provisions of the current marriage law on invalid marriage can be applied by analogy to declare the marriage of Party A and Party B invalid.
Analogy application, also called analogical reasoning, refers to the reasoning that is handled according to the corresponding legal provisions in the absence of clear written provisions in the law. The prerequisite for applying analogy is that although there is no explicit provision in the legal provisions, the basic principles and principles on which the legal provisions are based can include a certain behavior or event. Therefore, the analogy of a rule is based on a certain need of policy, justice and fairness. [16] In this case, Ding registered her marriage with A in the name of her sister, which was a false registration. Although this registration does not constitute a strict crime of bigamy because the natural person who registered with A is Ding and the natural person who registered with B is C, the same identity of B has been registered twice, which has the same degree of harm to others and social public order and good customs. The basic characteristics of these two behaviors have legal evaluation significance.
Another problem found by the law in this case appears in the interpretation of the law. It is a mechanical and rigid expression of legal knowledge to identify the crime of bigamy by finding out whether the people who live with C and A are the same natural person after two marriage registrations, which violates the principle of legality review of legal thinking. This is essentially a manifestation of judicial romanticism. The state manages the relationship between men and women through marriage registration. The relationship between men and women is called marriage only because it is registered in accordance with the provisions of the national marriage registration and recognized by the state. Without this, any relationship between men and women, no matter how complete, can't be called marriage, only illegal cohabitation or something else. At this level, marriage is conceptual in nature, and only the formal requirements of legal registration need to be managed and regulated by national laws. As for whether the registered men and women really live together or whether they are two natural persons in the state of marriage registration, the state cannot carry out substantive management. We might as well divide marriage into two aspects: natural attribute and social attribute. The main content of social attribute is to register marriages that meet the conditions stipulated by national laws, so that the relationship between men and women can be recognized by the state and then protected by law. Natural attribute is the essential content of sexual cohabitation, and cohabitation has the biological value of mutual care and reproduction. As far as the purpose of marriage registration management and the resulting invalid and revocable marriage litigation are concerned, this is a formal marriage system that requires standardization, rather than a substantive marriage content management system. Marriage itself is the result of the intervention of the social state in the relationship between men and women, and the essential attribute of marriage is its social attribute rather than its natural attribute. The crux of this case lies in whether the marriage registration between Party B and Party A has legal social attributes and should be protected by law. Of course, the situation that marriage needs state intervention can be natural, such as the actual performance of cohabitation obligations, or social, such as the determination of the validity of marriage registration. The flaws in the social attribute of marriage should be solved according to the requirements of national norms for the social attribute of marriage, and the flaws in its social attribute cannot be legally countered by the natural attribute of marriage, that is, Party B did not live with Party C and Party A respectively, and did not "bigamy" in essence to cover up the illegality of its two marriage registrations. Moreover, the marriage law stipulates that if the marriage is invalid, the parties may not withdraw the lawsuit, which also shows the attitude of the state to intervene in the legality of the marriage registration form. In this case, Party B has registered marriage twice, one of which is definitely illegal. At this time, if the applicant applies to withdraw the lawsuit, it will not be allowed.
4. The enlightenment of this case to the cultivation of judges' professional thinking and some thoughts.
Judging from the task of judging disputes and the technology of law application, the result of this case is understandable. The applicant can't produce more evidence to prove that the respondent B in this case is Ding, and the two marriage registrations of B are also due to the inconsistency of B's identity materials in the two marriage files (one of which has many modifications) and the fact that the people living with C and A are not the same natural person (one is B and the other is Ding), which leads to the failure of bigamy. There are no other circumstances in this case that should declare the marriage invalid, and the applicant's request is based on the burden of proof. During the trial of the case, Sister B and Sister D completely exchanged their identities-the marriage registration of Sister B and Sister C was declared invalid, and Sister B re-registered with Sister C in the name of Sister D-which also made the marriage of Sister B and Sister A seem to have the only legal status on the surface. From the point of view of litigation efficiency, the handling of this case can be said to be reasonable and even successful.
However, this case did not end with the rejection of the applicant's request. The simplified handling of a complicated case conceals the truth of social life, and the court's strict self-control tendency in exercising judicial power highlights the weakening of judicial function and the superficial and non-legal thinking of judges. No matter what kind of economic benefits the applicant and the respondent make false registration or try to declare false registration invalid (the background of the case is that Ding Can can't register a valid marriage with A in his own name, get an account in Chengdu High-tech Zone and get compensation for subsequent demolition; If Party A doesn't make efforts to declare his marriage with Party B invalid, he can't get the account of hi-tech zone for his second wife, and keep the benefits of demolition. The court rejected the judgment and returned the dispute to the society. From the perspective of essentially solving the problems existing in social life and giving play to the social adjustment function of judicial decisions, the handling method of this case is worth discussing. The verdict of general disputes is limited, and the impact and adjustment on society are also limited. Due to the simple self-control of the court, the influence and adjustment of the judgment in this case on society is limited to a more limited or even inaction range. The court left too many twists and turns and clues to the society itself to digest and reorganize-and this case found the law through dialectical reasoning, which can completely find a legal rule that is both universal in formal rationality and in line with the substantive rationality of the case, and will play a more perfect role in judicial dispute adjudication.
On the other hand, there are different opinions in the process of handling cases, which reflects the spontaneous and chaotic thinking state of thinkers when analyzing problems, and is the performance of insufficient social experience and insufficient training in logical analysis ability. The judge's legal thinking ability is very important for the judgment of a case. American Justice Holmes once said that "the life of law is never logic, but experience" [17], which shows the significance of the judge's personality and judicial experience to the formation of judicial decisions. If legislators try to find a reasonable and legal system for the whole society, they look for general legal rules in social norms, while judges are loyal to legal rules to find a reasonable and legal basis for individual cases and constantly find laws in individual cases. This process is the combination of universal law and individual case, and it is an activity that is fixed in the interactive relationship between law and individual case and seeks legitimacy and legality for individual case judgment. [18] Legal discovery itself is a transcendence of written legal rules. Although the judge's decision is the word of one person, it should not be the judge's private opinion, but a reflection of the general will. It is not a straight line, but usually a dialogue and discussion process. As soon as the judge's judgment comes out, it is integrated into the torrent of public discussion and dialogue as an opinion, tested and filtered by society, and its legal wisdom is preserved as the justice and experience of secular life. [19] The judge should be responsible for the case first, followed by the law, judicial justice and the honor of the judge. The adjudication of each case is a major and serious legal discovery activity in human history, and it is also a major public decision-making activity. How to cultivate lawyers' professional rational thinking in practice, distinguish between judges and various stimuli around the case with wisdom, avoid the adverse impact of negative internal reasons on fair judgment, develop their own judicial experience through professional rational thinking, and enrich and enhance their rational thinking ability through their own judicial experience, which is worthy of the honor of judges as advocates of legal spirit and preachers of legal significance.