检察机关提出量刑建议的合理模式——以职务犯罪案件为视角

近年来,职务犯罪案件出现了量刑失衡的现象,这与我国现阶段量刑程序中存在问题有着密切的关系。理论界和司法实务界在规范量刑程序,限制法官的自由裁量权方面进行了有益地尝试。在职务犯罪刑事诉讼中,保证控辩双方掌握证据的完整性,加强控辩双方之间对抗性是检察机关提出合理量刑建议的重要因素。     

THE MULTILEVEL CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL SENTENCING: INTEGRATING JUDGE‐ AND COUNTY‐LEVEL INFLUENCES*

This study extends recent inquiries of contextual effects in sentencing by jointly examining the influence of judge and courtroom social contexts. It combines two recent years of individual sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) with data on judicial background characteristics and county court social contexts. Three‐level hierarchical models are estimated to investigate the influence of judge and county contexts on individual variations in sentencing. Results indicate that nontrivial sentencing variations are associated with both individual judge characteristics and county court contexts. Judicial background factors also condition the influence of individual offender characteristics in important ways. These and other findings are discussed in relation to contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision making that highlight the importance of both judge and court contexts in sentencing. The study concludes with suggestions for future research on contextual disparities in criminal sentencing.     

规制量刑权的路径探析

量刑权属于德沃金言下的弱自由裁量权，具有实现个案事实与刑法规范无缝对接、彰显社会正义与保障人权的价值。量刑虽是一项具有浓郁能动司法色彩的活动，但量刑权的行使却不能简单地基于正当、合理的名义。而是首先应遵循一套实体规则，这个实体规则以责任刑法为价值基础，背靠法律人经验，思维步骤符合认知规律且历经实践检验；同时为确保实体规则得以一体遵循，还须设置和运行量刑程序，最终促使法官判罚说理，提高司法信度和效度。     

论定罪量刑的社会学模式

现行刑事立法赋予法官享有一定的定罪量刑自由裁量权,该自由裁量权受诸多案件社会结构因素影响,案件社会结构因素影响定罪量刑的过程及其表现出的样式就是定罪量刑社会学模式。定罪量刑的社会学模式以案件社会学理论为参照,并基本被实证研究所证实。由于同性质的具体案件的社会结构不同或同一案件在不同诉讼阶段的社会结构不同,法官受其影响程度也不同,定罪量刑不公正现象由此而生。实现公正定罪量刑的关键在于避免定罪量刑社会学模式发生作用。     

论量刑规范化的实现路径——以刑罚差异性为切入点

量刑是法官在遵循犯罪事实和刑法规范的基础上,运用自身经验和司法逻辑进行理性判断的过程,科学的量刑结果不可能完全整齐划一。电脑或数学量刑均无法代替法官自身经验和智慧。因此量刑规范化的实现,有赖于在立法完善的前提下,发挥和提高法官自身的司法智慧。     

Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines

The argument that curbing judicial sentencing discretion generates more prosecutorial discretion at earlier decision points in case processing received little empirical attention beyond Miethe's (1987) before/after study of the Minnesota guidelines. This article presents an examination of whether Ohio's sentencing reform resulted in significant changes in prosecutorial decisions related to indictment severity, dropped charges, charge reductions, and overall plea bargains. The implementation of determinate sentencing guidelines corresponded with a significant yet modest increase in the likelihood of charge reductions only. Some changes also occurred in the specific effects of various defendant characteristics on some of the outcomes examined, but these changes did not uniformly result in harsher dispositions for defendants facing greater social and economic disadvantage. Similar to Miethe's observation regarding Minnesota's sentencing scheme, any increase in levels of prosecutorial discretion that might have occurred under Ohio's latest scheme had not resulted in substantive extra-legal disparities in case dispositions.     

Taking the Law Into Our Own Hands: Structured Sentencing, Fear of Violence, and Citizen Initiatives in Washington State

This paper examines the impact of citizen initiatives on Washington State's system of structured sentencing. Criminal justice sentencing guidelines were implemented in Washington's juvenile court system in 1978 and in its adult felony courts in 1984. In the twenty years since, both systems have experienced significant changes, many of which impact judicial and administrative discretion. Early modifications to the guidelines were driven by legislative and administrative concerns (budgeting, prison population management). More recent changes have been driven by citizen initiatives fostered as a response to public fear of crime and violence. Increasingly, the public has rejected the advice and management of adult sentencing guidelines by criminal justice professionals, and taken a direct hand through the initiative process in setting the limits of judicial and administrative discretion. As a result, structured sentencing has become more complicated and less internally consistent. It remains unclear whether this is the inevitable price of growth in single issue politics and more direct public involvement in the determination of sentencing policy     

SEX‐BASED DISPARITIES IN FELONY DISPOSITIONS BEFORE VERSUS AFTER SENTENCING REFORM IN OHIO*

Extending Koons‐Witt's (2002) study of whether sex‐based disparities in imprisonment likelihoods changed under sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, we examined similar models for Ohio with additional analyses of felony conviction likelihoods and sentence length for 5,472 felony defendants from twenty‐four trial courts. The main effects of a defendant's sex on imprisonment were significant during both periods (unlike the Minnesota findings), consistent with a chivalry perspective. Random coefficient models revealed that these effects were similar across the twenty‐four jurisdictions. Analyses also revealed significant postguideline reductions in sentence length disparities based on a woman's race and number of dependent children, yet increased disparities in imprisonment likelihoods postguidelines based on a woman's race and whether she was convicted on drug charges. These and other findings are discussed in the context of the Ohio legislature's implementation of a sentencing scheme that retains considerably more judicial discretion relative to Minnesota's template.     

Too Many Black Men: The Sentencing Judge's Dilemma

Legal reform sometimes has unanticipated, even ironic, results. A good example is federal legislation adopted in the 1980s that was supposed to enhance equity in sentencing. Congress, like many state legislatures in this period, reduced judicial control over sentencing by adopting presumptive sentencing guidelines for all serious criminal offenses and mandatory sentences for some specific crimes. Reformers did succeed in reducing judicial discretion in the sentencing process, but racial disparities have gotten much worse. Unprecedented numbers of minorities, particularly black men, are going to jail for long terms. The situation leaves trial judges in a difficult position. They are legally bound to implement a sentencing regime that many of them believe is racially discriminatory. Herbert Jacob's work on criminal trial courts provides a framework for investigating this problem. As Jacob's organizational approach predicts, judges were initially more troubled by the diminution of their powers than by the emerging pattern of increased minority incarceration. Nevertheless, some judges have criticized the racial implications of the sentencing law, protesting in various, resourceful ways. Judicial resistance to a law on moral grounds, though rare, is significant because it represents a break in the ranks of officialdom that enhances the moral credibility of critics of the current law.     

In Defence of Substantial Sentencing Discretion

This article develops an ideal of sentencing discretion as consisting in sufficient dispositional flexibility for the trial judge to set, on behalf of the polity, reasonable terms for the continuance of relations with the offender in view of his crime. This ideal requires trial judges to have what may be termed “substantial” sentencing discretion: discretion that is exercised with direct reference to the values and goals penal sanctions are expected to serve, and where it is this quality of value-based engagement that provides the justification for the decision. The article engages with empirical research into sentencing that helps us address the strength of the case for and against substantial sentencing discretion, and ultimately defends substantial sentencing discretion on functional as well as ethical–political grounds.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING DEPARTURES ACROSS MODES OF CONVICTION*

Recent analyses of guideline sentencing practices have demonstrated that sentences departing from guidelines serve as a significant locus of racial/ethnic and other extralegal disparity. Little is known, however, about the ways that different courtroom processes, such as modes of conviction, condition these effects. Using recent data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), I analyze the overall effects of race/ethnicity and other factors on judicial decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and then I reexamine these relationships according to four modes of conviction (non‐negotiated pleas, negotiated pleas, bench trials, and jury trials). I argue that the mode of conviction provides a useful indicator of the differential exercise of discretion by different courtroom actors in the sentencing process. As such, it is likely to condition the use of stereotypical patterned responses, thus moderating the effects of race/ethnicity and other relevant sentencing factors. Findings support this expectation, demonstrating that extralegal effects vary considerably across modes of conviction. These results raise important questions about the role of different courtroom actors in contributing to racial and ethnic disparities under sentencing guidelines.     

An argument for self-imposed explicit judicial sentencing standards

Despite considerable attention, unwarranted disparity in sentencing remains a major and pervasive criminal justice problem. In this paper the argument is made that the most appropriate remedy lies not in an attempt to eliminate judicial sentencing discretion, but rather through the development and articulation of explicit sentencing standards or guidelines. Building upon the experience gained in a recent study with the United States Board of Parole, a model is put forth for the development and articulation of sentencing policy on a district or circuit basis that could be applied to structure and control discretion without removing individual case consideration.     

Beyond Sentencing Guidelines: Additional Functions for Intermediate Sentencing Entities

The first part of this two-part special issue on structured sentencing in the U.S. focused on individual jurisdictions and the relationship of five types of sentencing reforms to judicial discretion and to the political and legal forces that originated, maintained, altered or sometimes ended the reform. This issue moves the focus to a comparative one, looking across a variety of different jurisdictions to report common threads of advantage and disadvantage to the various structured sentencing systems. Originating in political and legal arenas, structured sentencing affects not only the sentencing process, but can itself affect the political process and the distribution of sanctioning discretion among the different branches of government.     

量刑建议制度运作构思

为规范法官的自由裁量权，实现公平与正义，有必要实行量刑建议制度。量刑建议制度运作的核心在于，量刑规则的建立、量刑建议内容的详细而具体且在判决书中予以全部表达、量刑建议的庭审吏锋这三方面内容的确立。     

酌定量刑情节的泛化现象研究

当前,以死刑案件为突出代表的酌定量刑情节在司法实践中出现了泛化现象,影响了司法的公正性。这种泛化主要表现为量刑情节的事实和证据宽泛,量刑事实与犯罪事实关系松散,量刑目的与刑罚的目的产生冲突。就我国司法而言,酌定量刑情节的适用仍应遵循法定性原则,符合酌定量刑情节构成要件要求;酌定量刑事实还应符合刑罚的目的要件,酌定量刑情节与犯罪事实应当存在直接的影响关系;法官收集酌定量刑情节证据行为不得背离其中立地位。规治酌定量刑情节泛化现象必须从程序正义的角度设计酌定量刑情节适用的程序规则。     

Hidden Disparities: Decomposing Inequalities in Time Served in California, 1985–2009

While a large literature establishes the racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing, we know comparatively little about the role of race and ethnicity in prison release. Using data from the National Corrections Reporting Program contextualized in California's political and legislative atmosphere, this article explores the role of race and ethnicity in prison release between 1985 and 2009 by studying components of sentencing and release. Limiting the evaluation of disparities to sentencing or time served in prison at release may inadvertently mask racial and ethnic inequities in the judicial process because events and actors can introduce circumstances between sentencing and release from prison that ultimately influence time served. The analysis confirmed that the measures used at the time of sentencing do not provide enough information to determine the differential experiences of groups in the real amount of time served in prison.© 2014 Law and Society Association     

罪刑均衡的司法考察

司法中的罪刑均衡原则通过责任要素的介入将报应主义下的罪刑均衡与目的主义下的刑罚个别化原则结合起来 ,表现为责刑均衡 ,实现了量刑原则由一元向二元的转变。在罪刑均衡原则的实践过程中 ,定罪与量刑是两个密切相关的范畴。准确定罪始终是公正量刑的前提 ,但量刑对定罪亦有不可忽视的反作用。当前 ,我国司法实践中存在着量刑趋重与量刑偏差较大等问题 ,制约着罪刑均衡原则的充分实现。对量刑偏差问题 ,比较现实的解决方案是将各地量刑经验汇总至最高人民法院 ,在学者的参与下确立起个罪的量刑基准 ,并逐步建立起适度的遵循先例制度 ,以实现量刑的统一。至于量刑趋重问题 ,它是我国刑法文化形态的外在表现 ,难以在短期内得到改观 ,但司法依旧可以有所作为。     

法理学视野中的法官自由裁量权

法官自由裁量权的定位是司法改革中的重要问题。作者从法理学的角度对法官的自由裁量权进行了较全面的探讨。文章首先分析了法官自由裁量权的内涵 ,基于此 ,作者接着从哲学、法学和实践的角度对法官自由裁量权进行了考察 ,并对自由裁量权的存在根基进行了分析 ,最后就如何缓解法官自由裁量权中个性化的涉入提出了建设性的意见。     

CONTEXTUAL DISPARITIES IN GUIDELINES DEPARTURES: COURTROOM SOCIAL CONTEXTS,GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE,AND EXTRALEGAL DISPARITIES IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING1

This study examines the theoretical and empirical linkages between criminal court social contexts and the judicial use of sentences that deviate from the recommendations of sentencing guidelines. Individual sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) are combined with county‐level measures of social context to examine predictions about the role courtroom characteristics play in judicial departures. Results from hierarchical analyses suggest that the likelihood of departure varies significantly across courts, even after accounting for variations in individual case characteristics. Several measures of courtroom social context—including the size of the court, its caseload pressure and the overall guidelines compliance rate—are significantly related to the individual likelihood of receiving a departure sentence. Moreover, the social context of the court also conditions the influence of various individual‐level sentencing considerations. Findings are discussed in relation to contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision making and future directions for research on contextual disparities in criminal sentencing are suggested.     

DISCRETION AND DISPARITY UNDER SENTENCING GUIDELINES: THE ROLE OF DEPARTURES AND STRUCTURED SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES*

This article examines the use of alternative sentencing provisions as mechanisms for departing from sentencing guidelines in Washington State and as structural sources of unwarranted sentencing disparity. The authors argue that these structural features of guidelines not only serve as “windows of discretion” through which disparities arise, but they also may encourage disparities by requiring consideration of substantive criteria that disadvantage certain offender groups. The analyses find that males and minority offenders are less likely to receive alternative sentences below the standard range, but that race‐ethnicity and gender have inconsistent effects on departures above the standard range. Theoretical implications of the study are discussed.