judicial-value-judgment

Capabilities

Determine whether a case truly requires value judgment, rather than mechanically applying legal rules.
Distinguish issues of fact-finding, legal interpretation, value balancing, and discretionary choice.
Identify core legal values such as order, freedom, equality, human rights, justice, and efficiency.
Analyze value conflicts between individuals, between communities, and between individuals and communities.
Use the principle of value hierarchy, the principle of balancing in individual cases, the proportionality principle, and the principle of the people's fundamental interests to handle value conflicts.
Compare the normative basis, value orientation, interest impact, and adjudicative risk of different discretionary options.
Generate value judgment analysis opinions that judges can rewrite as judicial reasoning.

How to Use

Step 1: Determine whether this Skill needs to be invoked

First determine whether the case involves a genuine value judgment task.

The following should be checked:

Whether the legal rules are uncertain;
Whether there is a conflict between rights, interests, or values;
Whether there are open legal concepts, discretionary space, or normative gaps;
Whether it is necessary to review whether a certain restriction of rights, sacrifice of interests, or public-purpose measure is appropriate;
Whether mechanical application of the rules may lead to obvious injustice or insufficient reasoning.

If the case involves only pure fact-finding, evidence admissibility, or application of clear rules, this Skill should not be forcibly invoked.

Step 2: Lock onto the discretionary issue

Extract from the case the issue on which the judge truly needs to exercise discretion.

The following should be distinguished:

Factual issues: whether the facts occurred and whether the evidence is sufficient to prove them;
Normative issues: which legal rules apply and how the meaning of the rules should be interpreted;
Value issues: how to choose between different rights, interests, and values;
Discretionary issues: how to choose the more justified option among multiple lawful options.

This Skill focuses on the third and fourth types of issues.
If factual or normative issues have not yet been resolved, their impact on the value judgment should first be noted, and no definitive conclusion should be drawn directly.

Step 3: Identify the structure of the value conflict

Determine which category the value conflict in this case belongs to:

Conflict between individuals: for example, one party's free exercise of rights conflicts with another party's personality, property, privacy, reputation, or other rights and interests;
Conflict between communities: for example, conflict between different public interests, institutional goals, regional interests, or collective interests;
Conflict between individuals and communities: for example, conflict between individual freedom, property rights, privacy rights and public order, public safety, or administrative efficiency.

When outputting, the following should be clearly stated:

The subjects of the conflict;
The conflicting values;
The manifestation of the conflict;
Which party's rights and interests are restricted or diminished;
Whether the conflict is a real conflict, or an apparent conflict that can be resolved through interpretation, factual distinction, or institutional arrangements.

Step 4: Locate the relevant legal values

Identify the values involved in this case from the following core legal values:

Order: stability of social relations, orderly operation of power, reduction of disputes, and the possibility of social cooperation;
Freedom: subjects autonomously choose and act in accordance with the law, and are free from unlawful interference;
Equality: eliminate privilege and discrimination, and realize formal equality and necessary substantive equality;
Human rights: respect for a person's independent personality, equal dignity, and fundamental rights;
Justice: make a proper distribution of interests, burdens, responsibilities, and procedures;
Efficiency: promote resource allocation, convenience of activity, and growth of social wealth through reasonable institutional arrangements.

Do not list values in a general way. Each value should be explained:

What this value specifically manifests as in this case;
Which facts and norms support this value;
What limitations, threats, or harms this value is subject to;
The specific point at which this value conflicts with another value.

Step 5: Confirm the normative basis and the boundaries of discretion

Value judgments must be made within the legal framework and must not depart from norms to make purely moral judgments.

It should be checked:

Whether there are clear legal rules;
Whether there are legal principles, institutional purposes, or legislative purposes;
Whether there are constitutional, statutory, judicial interpretation, guiding case, or similar-case adjudication rules;
Whether the judge has room for discretion;
Whether the value judgment may breach the legal text, institutional purposes, or procedural limits;
Whether there are fundamental rights, statutory procedures, or boundaries of authority that must not be touched.

If there is insufficient normative basis, it should be marked as "not suitable for directly drawing a determinative value conclusion."

Step 6: Apply the principle of hierarchy of values

When legal values of different hierarchical ranks conflict, the higher-ranked value should be protected first.

Judgment rules:

Fundamental values generally take priority over non-fundamental values;
Human rights and justice have relatively high argumentative weight in human rights protection and the evaluation of the rule of law;
Order, efficiency, and administrative convenience cannot be generalized into reasons that naturally override fundamental rights;
Even if a higher value has priority, it is still necessary to explain the necessity and limits of restricting other values;
An abstract hierarchy of values must not be used directly to replace case-specific argumentation.

The output should explain:

Which values have relatively high weight;
The factual and normative reasons for the weight judgment;
Whether the restricted value receives minimum protection;
Whether the judgment on the hierarchy of values is disputed.

Step 7: Apply the principle of case-specific balancing

When legal values of the same rank or those difficult to clearly rank conflict, case-specific balancing should be conducted.

Comprehensive consideration should be given to:

The identity of the parties, the manner of conduct, and the subjective state;
The degree to which rights or interests are affected;
Whether the harm is realistic, specific, and serious;
Whether there are alternative arrangements;
Whether protecting one party's interests would impose an excessive burden on the other party;
The impact of the discretionary outcome on similar cases, social order, and the operation of the system;
Whether the legitimate interests of both parties can be accommodated.

Case-specific balancing is not a simple compromise, but rather the search, on the basis of facts and norms, for a discretionary solution that better accommodates legitimate interests.

Step 8: Apply the principle of proportionality when necessary

When a case involves "restricting another legal interest in order to protect a certain superior legal value," the principle of proportionality should apply. It is especially applicable in scenarios such as public authority measures restricting individual rights, public interests restricting private rights and interests, and institutional objectives restricting individual freedom.

Review in sequence:

Legitimacy of purpose: whether the restrictive measure is intended to achieve a lawful, legitimate, and important legal purpose;
Suitability of means: whether the measure helps achieve the purpose;
Necessity: whether there exists an alternative means that can equally achieve the purpose but causes less harm;
Proportionality in the narrow sense: whether the public interest, institutional interest, or rights-protection interest obtained is clearly greater than the harm caused to the rights or interests of the opposing party.

"Legitimacy of purpose" must not be directly equated with "reasonable restriction."

Step 9: Apply the principle of the fundamental interests of the people when necessary

When a case is a major and difficult case, and the value conflict is difficult to resolve solely by value hierarchy, case-by-case balancing, or the principle of proportionality, an auxiliary examination should be made as to whether the discretionary plan conforms to the fundamental interests of the people.

Rules of use:

"The fundamental interests of the people" must not be used as an empty slogan;
The social groups, institutional objectives, and real-world impacts corresponding to those interests should be specifically explained;
The protection of individual rights should also be respected, avoiding overriding individual basic rights with an abstract overall interest;
It should be explained how this principle supplements rather than replaces legal rules, value hierarchy, and the principle of proportionality.

Step 10: Compare discretionary plans

At least two alternative discretionary plans should be compared.
If only one plan is clearly acceptable, it should also be explained why the other plans are not acceptable.

Each plan should be analyzed for:

The core value it supports;
The value it sacrifices or restricts;
Normative basis;
Factual basis;
Advantages of the plan;
Risks of the plan;
Possible points of rebuttal;
Whether it conforms to value hierarchy, case-by-case balancing, and the principle of proportionality.

Step 11: Form a judicial reasoning framework

Finally, generate a reasoning framework that judges can rewrite.

The reasoning should include:

Why this case requires value judgment;
What value conflict exists in this case;
Why the court chose a certain value-judgment path;
Whether the restricted value receives necessary respect;
How the discretionary conclusion conforms to normative purpose, individual justice, and the principle of proportionality;
How to respond to uncertainty and opposing opinions.

Input Format

The following inputs may be accepted:

Case summary: case facts, background of the dispute, relationships between the parties;
Focus of the dispute: issues requiring the judge's judgment;
Discretionary needs: whether rights-conflict analysis, legal uncertainty analysis, proportionality review, or judicial reasoning assistance is needed.

The minimum input should include:

Basic case facts;
Focus of the dispute;
The rights, interests, or values involved;
The issues requiring discretion.

When information is insufficient:

For key gaps that prevent further analysis, ask follow-up questions first;
For matters that may be temporarily assumed, clearly state "on the premise that the following assumptions hold";
Facts, norms, or value weights that cannot be confirmed must not be fabricated;
For multiple possible interpretations, the impact of different interpretations on the conclusion should be set out.

Output Format

The output should adopt the following structure:

# 司法价值判断分析意见

## 一、裁量问题定位
- 本案是否需要价值判断：
- 需要判断的问题：
- 不属于本 Skill 处理范围的问题：

## 二、价值冲突识别
- 冲突类型：
- 冲突主体：
- 冲突价值：
- 冲突的具体表现：

## 三、相关法律价值分析
| 法律价值 | 本案中的具体表现 | 支持事实/规范 | 受影响程度 |
|---|---|---|---|

## 四、规范基础与裁量边界
- 可适用规则：
- 可适用原则：
- 裁量空间：
- 不得突破的边界：

## 五、价值位阶与个案平衡
- 价值位阶判断：
- 个案平衡因素：
- 应优先保护或重点考量的利益：
- 被限制利益的最低保护要求：

## 六、比例原则审查
- 是否需要比例原则审查：
1. 目的正当性：
2. 手段适当性：
3. 必要性：
4. 狭义均衡性：

## 七、人民根本利益原则审查
- 是否需要适用：
- 涉及的公共利益或人民根本利益：
- 与个人权利保障的协调方式：

## 八、裁量方案比较
| 方案 | 支持价值 | 限制价值 | 优势 | 风险 | 是否可采 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## 九、建议判断路径
- 推荐路径：
- 核心理由：
- 适用条件：
- 需要保留的不确定性：

## 十、裁判说理参考
提供可改写进裁判文书的说理段落。

## 十一、风险与反驳点
- 可能反驳点：
- 事实不确定性：
- 规范不确定性：
- 需避免的裁判风险：

Example Usage

Example Request

请根据以下案情，辅助法官进行价值判断：

某市为治理夜间噪音和交通拥堵，发布规范性文件，规定市中心核心商圈内所有露天夜市摊点每日 22:00 后必须停止营业。张某长期经营夜宵摊，其营业收入主要来自 22:00 至凌晨 2:00。张某认为该规定严重影响其经营自由和生计，要求法院审查该限制是否合理。市政府主张，该措施是为了维护公共秩序、保障周边居民休息权并改善交通安全。

请分析本案中经营自由、公共秩序、居民休息权、行政效率之间的价值冲突，并给出比例原则审查和裁判说理框架。

Example Output

# 司法价值判断分析意见

## 一、裁量问题定位

本案需要进行价值判断。争议并非单纯事实认定，而是行政机关为维护公共秩序、居民休息权和交通安全，对经营者营业自由进行时间限制时，该限制是否具有正当性和适度性。

需要判断的问题是：市政府要求核心商圈夜市摊点 22:00 后停止营业，是否在保护公共利益与限制个体经营自由之间保持合理平衡。

## 二、价值冲突识别

- 冲突类型：个体与共同体之间的价值冲突，同时包含经营者与周边居民之间的个体利益冲突。
- 冲突主体：夜市经营者、周边居民、市政府及公共管理秩序。
- 冲突价值：
  - 经营者一方：经营自由、生计利益、财产权相关利益；
  - 居民一方：休息权、生活安宁、健康利益；
  - 公共管理一方：公共秩序、交通安全、行政管理效率。
- 冲突表现：允许夜市持续经营可能影响居民休息和交通秩序；一律要求 22:00 后停业则可能显著影响夜市经营者收入。

## 三、相关法律价值分析

| 法律价值 | 本案中的具体表现 | 支持事实/规范 | 受影响程度 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 自由 | 经营者选择营业时间和经营方式的自由 | 张某主要收入来自 22:00 至凌晨 2:00 | 受影响较大 |
| 秩序 | 夜间公共空间秩序、交通秩序、噪音治理 | 市政府治理夜间噪音和拥堵 | 保护需求较强 |
| 人权/人格利益 | 居民休息、健康、生活安宁 | 周边居民夜间生活利益 | 具有较高保护价值 |
| 效率 | 行政机关以统一时间标准降低执法成本 | 一律 22:00 停业便于管理 | 有一定价值，但不能单独压倒基本权益 |
| 正义 | 在经营者生计与居民生活安宁之间公平分配负担 | 双方利益均具有正当性 | 需要个案平衡 |

## 四、规范基础与裁量边界

行政机关可以基于公共秩序、噪音治理、交通安全等目的对经营活动作出合理限制。但裁量边界在于：限制不得缺乏事实基础，不得以管理便利为唯一理由过度限制经营自由，并应考虑分区、分时、限噪、许可管理等损害较小的替代方案。

## 五、价值位阶与个案平衡

居民休息、健康利益与公共安全具有较高保护权重；经营自由和生计利益也应受到尊重。公共秩序并不当然压倒经营自由，关键在于限制措施是否必要、是否过度、是否保留合理经营空间。

个案平衡应重点考察：夜间经营造成噪音和拥堵的现实程度、核心商圈是否确有特殊管理需要、22:00 作为统一停业时间是否过早、是否存在分区域或限噪管理等替代方式、是否为经营者设置过渡期或替代安排。

## 六、比例原则审查

- 是否需要比例原则审查：需要。该案涉及公共管理目的对个体经营自由的限制。

1. 目的正当性：治理噪音、维护交通安全、保障居民休息权，属于正当公共目的。
2. 手段适当性：限制夜市 22:00 后营业，有助于减少夜间人流、噪音和交通压力，具备一定适当性。
3. 必要性：若存在损害更小的替代手段，例如划定夜市区域、设置噪音标准、区分工作日和节假日营业时间，则一律 22:00 停业可能不满足必要性要求。
4. 狭义均衡性：如果该措施导致夜市经营者主要收入来源基本丧失，而行政机关未说明必须统一提前停业，也未设置缓冲或替代安排，则公共利益收益与个体利益损害之间可能失衡。

## 七、人民根本利益原则审查

本案通常不需要单独上升至人民根本利益原则。若城市夜间治理涉及重大公共安全、广泛居民健康或重要公共资源配置，可作为补充考量，但不得以抽象公共利益直接压倒经营者合法权益。

## 八、裁量方案比较

| 方案 | 支持价值 | 限制价值 | 优势 | 风险 | 是否可采 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 维持 22:00 后一律停业 | 秩序、效率、居民休息权 | 经营自由、生计利益 | 管理简单，治理效果直接 | 可能过度限制，存在“一刀切”风险 | 需严格论证后方可采 |
| 要求政府调整为分区、分时、限噪管理 | 自由、正义、比例原则 | 行政效率 | 更能兼顾经营者和居民利益 | 执法成本较高 | 较为可采 |
| 完全撤销限制 | 经营自由 | 秩序、居民休息权 | 最大程度保护经营者 | 可能忽视公共秩序和居民权益 | 不宜直接采纳 |

## 九、建议判断路径

建议采用“目的正当但手段可能过度”的判断路径。法院可以认为，市政府治理夜间噪音、交通拥堵和维护居民休息权的目的具有正当性，但仍需审查其是否采取了损害最小的治理方式。若政府无法证明核心商圈所有露天夜市摊点均必须在 22:00 后停止营业，且不存在更温和的替代措施，则该规定可能违反必要性和狭义均衡性要求。

## 十、裁判说理参考

夜市经营者依法享有一定的经营自由和生计利益，周边居民亦享有生活安宁、休息和健康利益。行政机关为维护公共秩序和交通安全，可以对夜间经营活动作出合理管理。但公共秩序和行政效率并不当然具有压倒经营自由的效力。对于限制经营活动的行政措施，法院应审查其目的是否正当、手段是否适当、是否存在损害更小的替代措施，以及公共利益增益与个体权益减损之间是否保持均衡。

在现有事实下，22:00 后一律停止营业虽然有助于实现噪音治理和秩序维护目的，但若行政机关未能说明采取统一停业时间的必要性，也未考虑分区管理、限噪管理、节假日差异化管理、过渡安排等替代手段，则该措施可能对经营者造成过度负担。法院可在尊重行政机关治理目标的同时，要求其对限制措施作出更精细化、比例化的调整。

## 十一、风险与反驳点

- 可能反驳点：
  - 若政府能够证明该区域夜间噪音和交通问题严重，且其他治理措施已经失败，则统一停业的合理性会增强。
  - 若张某属于无证经营或违法占道经营，则其经营自由保护强度会降低。
- 事实不确定性：
  - 是否存在实际噪音检测、交通拥堵数据；
  - 是否听取经营者和居民意见；
  - 是否存在替代治理措施。
- 规范不确定性：
  - 该规范性文件的制定权限、程序是否合法仍需单独审查。
- 需避免的裁判风险：
  - 不宜简单以“公共利益”压倒经营者权益；
  - 也不宜完全忽视居民休息权和公共秩序；
  - 应避免将比例原则简化为目的正当性审查。

Best Practices

First determine whether a value judgment issue truly exists; do not package every case as a value conflict.
Always base the analysis on facts and norms, and do not engage in empty value talk detached from the case.
Every value judgment must be grounded in specific rights, interests, harms, and institutional purposes.
Present both the protected value and the restricted value, avoiding one-sided压倒式 argumentation.
When using the principle of value hierarchy, it is necessary to explain, in light of the facts of the individual case, why that value carries greater weight.
When using the principle of proportionality, it is necessary to fully review the legitimacy of the purpose, the suitability of the means, necessity, and proportionality in the narrow sense.
When using the principle of the fundamental interests of the people, its practical orientation must be specifically explained and it must not be used as an empty slogan.
For parts where the facts are unclear, the norms are ambiguous, or value conflicts are difficult to rank, uncertainty should be clearly marked.
Judicial reasoning should remain neutral, prudent, and restrained, and should not use emotional, moralizing, or policy-propaganda style expressions.
Abstract concepts such as efficiency, order, and public interest must not be used to automatically suppress individuals' fundamental rights.

Limitations

This Skill cannot replace a judge in making a final adjudication.
This Skill cannot give a definitive conclusion when the facts are seriously unclear or there is a lack of basic normative basis.
This Skill is not responsible for reviewing the authenticity of evidence and can only analyze based on the input materials.
This Skill is not suitable for handling pure factual disputes, simple application of rules, or cases that require no discretion.
This Skill must not fabricate legal bases, case facts, similar-case rules, or adjudicative conclusions.
This Skill must not package personal moral preferences as legal value judgments.
This Skill cannot break through the existing legal framework to exercise arbitrary discretion.
The output of this Skill should serve as auxiliary material for judicial reasoning, not as a formal judicial document.