Structured Sentencing in Florida: Is the Experiment Over?

This article considers the history of structured sentencing in Florida, beginning with initial efforts to establish sentencing guidelines in 1977 and culminating in legislative action that abolishes the guidelines effective 1 October 1998 and establishes the Florida Criminal Punishment Code effective the same date. The conclusion of the article is that structured sentencing has never been widely accepted in Florida and that the Florida Criminal Punishment Code will probably be received in the same manner. Sentencing guidelines have been perceived by prosecutors and law enforcement officials as too lenient and by judges as too restrictive on their discretion. Outside factors such as prison population growth and political concerns have had a tremendous effect on sentencing policy. It is unlikely that the process of constant ferment and change in the Florida sentencing system will end any time soon since the Florida Criminal Punishment Code embodies essentially the same structure and principles as the guidelines it replaces.     

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     

量刑规范化与法官量刑自由裁量权的衡平

法官量刑自由裁量权的存在对量刑规范化的实现是必不可少的.在我国目前情况下,我们对法官量刑自由裁量权的存在应持有限度的认可的态度,不提倡法官量刑自由裁量权的过度行使.可以考虑从量刑理由的阐述、量刑基准点的确立和量刑刑事判例的角度对法官量刑自由裁量权的行使进行制约.     

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.     

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。     

The Evolution of the Determinate Ideal of Sentencing: An Illinois Case Study

The past two decades have witnessed enormous changes in state sentencing structures. While many of the fundamental tenets of the determinate sentencing reform movement have changed since the 1970s, one bedrock principle has remained constant: the belief that the sentencing power of post-conviction administrators must be curbed. Yet, in many jurisdictions, the goal of the reform movement has been frustrated as sentencing discretion has merely shifted from parole boards to prison officials. This article presents a case study from Illinois to illustrate how institutions' adaptive responses to externally imposed reforms can enlarge the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of public policy.     

Sentencing Transparency in the Information Age

How unrestricted or restricted should judges be when deciding a sentence? To what extent should sentences be predetermined, or to what extent should judges be left with the right to decide a sentence in each individual case? Some legal systems, most notably in the United States, have chosen sentencing guidelines to control judicial discretion. However, another approach has been to use computer technology in the form of so‐called sentencing information systems (SIS). This article examines these developments and what possible influence they have had and could have in the Scandinavian, particularly in the Norwegian, context. Penal institutions today are adjusting to the demands of the information society. Does and could the fact that we are living in an increasingly technologically mediated world influence judicial decision‐making? The article argues that the use of technology is not simply a question of technological change, but is first and foremost a social and political phenomenon, related to the relations of trust in a society.     

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。     

中国传统量刑制度的近代化——以《大清新刑律》为对象

中国传统的量刑制度在清末修律中发生了很大的变化,清末刑律在法定刑的设定方面采取了相对法定刑制度,增加了关于酌定量刑情节的规定,从而扩大了法官量刑的权力。另外,传统法律中影响量刑平等的情节也大都被废止。民初的司法实践也能表明清末刑律中的量刑制度得到较为严格的遵守。     

Structuring Judicial Discretion in China: Exploring the 2014 Sentencing Guidelines

In recent years, a range of western jurisdictions has introduced reforms designed to restrict and guide judicial discretion at sentencing. The reforms enacted include mandatory sentencing laws and guiding statutes prescribing sentencing purposes and principles as well as important aggravating and mitigating factors. However, formal guidelines are the most promising and well-studied innovation. We may now add China to the growing list of countries that have recognized the utility of guidelines. Over the past decade, China has slowly developed sentencing guidelines for its courts. The new guidelines contain both general directions with respect to the determination of sentence as well as specific numerical guidelines for common offences. The guidelines do not follow the approach taken by the US schemes, many of which employ a two-dimensional sentencing grid. Instead, China has adopted a strategy consisting of “Starting Point” sentences which are then adjusted by the court to reflect relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. This approach is much closer to the guidelines developed in England and Wales and those proposed but not yet implemented in New Zealand and Israel. In this article, we explore the new Chinese guidelines and provide a limited comparative analysis with guidelines in other jurisdictions. England and Wales is selected as the principal comparator since it has developed and implemented a comprehensive system consisting of both offence-specified guidelines as well as generic guidelines.     

Effects of Reducing Judicial Sentencing Discretion

This article uses a nationwide sample of state criminal cases to show the effects of reducing judicial sentencing discretion on disparities across rural-urban, southern-northern, black-white, and poor-nonpoor defendants. Judicial sentencing discretion is defined as the ratio between (1) the range in years within which a judge is allowed to sentence, and (2) the minimum number of years the judge must give when there is no probation. The data do indicate specific differences in sentencing between states of high judicial discretion and those of low judicial discretion, and the relationship of these disparities to discrimination is discussed.     

量刑制度宏观问题研究

量刑制度的外观为刑罚裁量与体系化构成 ,包括缓刑制度、死刑缓期执行、再犯和特别减轻制度 ;量刑制度具有规范、限制、整合、贯彻功能 ;运行量刑制度需要考虑运行环境和权力介入、媒体舆论、法官好恶、治安形势等相关影响因素 ;量刑制度存在两个基本走向 ,即综合化与精确化。量刑制度改革宜从总体目标、制度完善并结合刑事诉讼改革三方面同步进行     

Blended Sentencing Laws and the Punitive Turn in Juvenile Justice

In many states, young people today can receive a “blended” combination of both a juvenile sanction and an adult criminal sentence. We ask what accounts for the rise of blended sentencing in juvenile justice and whether this trend parallels crime control developments in the adult criminal justice system. We use event history analysis to model state adoption of blended sentencing laws from 1985 to 2008, examining the relative influence of social, political, administrative, and economic factors. We find that states with high unemployment, greater prosecutorial discretion, and disproportionate rates of African American incarceration are most likely to pass blended sentencing provisions. This suggests that the turn toward blended sentencing largely parallels the punitive turn in adult sentencing and corrections—and that theory and research on adult punishment productively extends to developments in juvenile justice.     

量刑思维规律下的量刑方法构建

量刑在本质上不是＂刑之量化＂,而是＂刑之裁量＂。这决定了量刑思维不只是形式逻辑思维或辩证逻辑思维,而是二者的有机统一。量刑方法作为量刑思维的表现手段,需遵循量刑思维的以上逻辑规律。传统的经验量刑法虽然是辩证逻辑思维的充分展现,但没有融入现代形式逻辑的现代科技手段;而所谓现代量刑方法虽然使用了现代科技手段,但又只是遵循现代形式逻辑规律,规避了辩证逻辑规律。刑法现代化下的量刑方法构建,应是基于量刑思维的逻辑规律,把传统经验量刑法与各所谓现代量刑方法进行整合,以形成定量与定性相结合的量刑方法。     

Three Strikes Legislation and Sentencing Commission Objectives

Between 1993 and 1997, state legislatures across the country passed legislation popularly known as "three strikes and you're out" laws. These laws appeared at a time when sentencing commissions existed in many states, and the commissions were involved in the legislative debates leading to the votes on three strikes laws. Thus, the passage of three strikes laws can shed light on one type of interaction between sentencing commissions and legislatures. This article posits a variety of objectives for sentencing commissions during three strikes debates, each a response to the recurring "pathologies" that appear when legislative, judicial, and executive branch officials create sentencing policy. A survey of states that have passed three strikes laws indicates that sentencing commissions have not made any systematic difference in the legislative debates on these statutes. Commissions have little reason to oppose these laws absolutely, and could lose political credibility by doing so. Commissions have incentives instead to argue for limiting the scope of these statutes. Where commissions have been involved in the debates about habitual felon legislation, they have emphasized limits on judicial discretion, focused on the quality of legislative deliberations rather than on legislative outcomes, and devoted little attention to prosecutorial charging decisions.     

“量刑规范化”解读

何谓"量刑规范化"是研究和探索量刑规范化问题的基础和前提,可理论上尚无明确或有价值之界定。基于对刑法现代化及量刑的实质和规律的考量,量刑规范化应是对"量刑",即把抽象的法律规则与具体的案件事实相结合并上升为理性与具体的过程的规范化。它表现为量刑统一化与量刑个别化的有机统一,是在尊重量刑实质和遵循量刑规律的前提下,通过设置和适用完备的程序制度,使量刑生产出公正有效及符合刑罚目的的量刑判决。     

(Un)anticipated Effects of Sentencing Reform on the Disparate Treatment of Defendants

Despite concerns over racial disparities in imprisonment across the United States, little empirical attention has been paid to how changing the structure of sentencing might affect levels of disparity. This article examines whether Ohio's shift to determinate sentencing corresponded with significant changes in legal and extralegal effects on case outcomes, both generally and differentially for African American and white defendants. Bilevel analyses of felony defendants from 24 jurisdictions reveal relatively few substantive changes in these effects over time. Some changes involved reductions in race-related disparities (e.g., in the severity of charges convicted on), with others reflecting increased disparity (e.g., higher imprisonment likelihoods for African Americans). Findings underscore a modest link between restructured sentencing and actual case outcomes overall , with some relatively mixed effects on levels of disparity.     

论死刑案件的量刑

死刑是一种最严厉的刑罚方法,死刑制度是一项极其重要的刑事司法制度。把握好死刑案件的量刑,对于实现罪责刑均衡进而实现刑事法治至关重要。死刑案件的量刑应秉持责任主义观念,以责任刑制约预防刑,综合考虑量刑的法律效果、政治效果和社会效果,追求个案量刑的综合平衡,并辅之以隔离式相对独立的量刑程序,改善当前死刑案件的审理现状和量刑情况,严格控制和审慎适用死刑,以实现司法的公平公正。     

被告人不认罪案件量刑程序的理想模式

被告人不认罪案件的量刑程序如何设计是当前量刑规范化改革试点过程中一个争议较大的问题,在司法理论和实践中有两种不同的模式——相对独立的量刑程序模式和隔离的量刑程序模式。量刑规范化改革的目的在于使量刑过程程序化、公开化,从而实现量刑公正,达到罪责刑相适应的要求。针对被告人不认罪案件,建立理想的量刑程序模式,将定罪程序与量刑程序有效地分隔开来,有利于达到量刑规范化改革的目的。