浅析刑法中被害人过错在量刑中的价值

对于犯罪人刑事责任的追究，应当纳入犯罪作为一个互动的情境模式下进行考虑。因而被害人过错对于犯罪人刑事责任的判定应当产生一定的影响力。从事实层面、规范层面以及法理上，我们都能够找到被害人过错影响量刑的正当性所在，而考虑到司法实践中，被害人过错作为量刑情节往往被忽略，因此将被害人过错上升为法定的量刑情节是我国刑事司法当中亟待解决的一个问题。     

刑事被害人谅解不应成为酌定量刑情节

根据刑罚正当化根据理论,被害人谅解无法成为酌定量刑情节。在恢复性司法中,被害人谅解虽然成为影响部分刑事案件处理的因素,但如果以此将被害人谅解作为量刑的酌定情节,其弊端十分明显。近年来,我国司法解释和实务中将被害人谅解作为酌定量刑情节,事实上,自诉案件的被害人谅解无非是对法律赋予的处分权的行使,公诉案件中将被害人谅解作为酌定情节,则违背了酌定量刑情节应与犯罪、犯罪人有直接关联性的基本原理,建议公诉案件中用"被害人向司法机关表达量刑的意见"取代被害人谅解作为酌定量刑情节的规定。     

略议被害人的宽恕及其适用

死刑存废是中国社会主义现代化刑事法制发展过程中必须要正视、不容回避的问题.在当今中国社会,关于死刑存废的争鸣已经展开.有学者提出,目前在中国死刑存废问题上应该采取的对策是:通过完善刑事立法和司法的方式努力减少与限制死刑,而本文认为"被害人宽恕"的考虑是实现这一对策的良好途径,将"被害人宽恕"作为量刑情节既有利于弘扬社会善良美德又有利于推进和谐社会的构建.     

论被害人过错的法定化——以被害与加害的关系为视角

被害人过错影响犯罪人刑事责任的问题,已在司法实践中受关注,但因其为酌定量刑情节,审判实践中的量刑不均衡难免存在。本文将从被害与加害的关系入手,对被害人过错的内涵、法定化依据及国内外的相关立法进行有益探索并提出完善建议,以期对刑事立法和司法实践的发展有所裨益。     

被害人过错酌定情节法定化的必要性及其途径

解决被害人过错责任在我国司法中存在的弊端，关键是将被害人过错法定化。通过对被害人过错作为酌定量刑情节弊端的分析和对国外关于被害人过错的立法例进行比较研究，从罪刑均衡、司法公正等方面论证被害人过错法定化的必要性和可行性，探索被害人过错酌定情节法定化的具体运作方案。     

也是犯罪与责任相均衡——对附条件“犯罪赔偿”的价值分析

特定前提下，因犯罪人赔偿局部或全部替代刑罚仍是对其归责，更多情形下的犯罪人赔偿得到宽恕在于其有效救助被害人和修复犯罪侵害，附条件肯定犯罪人赔偿的法律效果还可能创制、混成直至定型更具特殊预防犯罪效能的新刑种和附随性处分。但为了避免“只求息讼，不问曲直”甚至贿买司法，有必要在现行刑事司法机制中探索合理的赔偿方案；借修改刑诉法之际建立量刑程序，将商谈与质证机制一并引入法庭活动；通过周密论证完善刑法，定型包括赔偿情节适用要求在内的量刑规则。     

人身侵害类报复性犯罪中被害人过错法定化研究

报复性犯罪是指由于行为人自身或者家庭、社会等因素,从而导致对他人或社会产生报复性心理所引发的犯罪,通常分为报复他人和报复社会两种类型,本文主要论述针对他人的报复性犯罪。被害人过错是人身侵害类案件中的重要酌定情节,也是刑事诉讼中被告人时常援用的辩护理由,但是我国刑法至今仍未将被害人过错纳入法定量刑情节的范畴,这是导致强奸罪、故意伤害罪和其他人身侵害类犯罪量刑不均衡的主要原因。针对这个问题,本文通过分析论述被害人过错的法理基础,并对比外国立法例,结合我国司法实践,得出了被害人过错的酌定量刑情节应当法定化的结论。     

论刑事被害人宽恕对量刑的影响

被害人行为对形事诉讼的影响日渐加深,这迫切要求我们对被害人的行为进行系统的研究,以适应不断发展的社会实践。本文选取被害人宽恕对量刑的影响这一议题,从基本概念的阐释到国内外有关被害人宽恕理论的介绍,最后落脚到将被害人宽恕引入到我国刑事法学之具体制度构建,基本结构是从宏观到微观,从抽象到具体,以期能够对我国刑事法学的发展与改革产生贡献微薄之力。     

被害人过错与死刑的限制适用

作为司法实践中重要的酌定量刑情节,被害人过错对于死刑的限制适用具有重要意义.被害人过错影响死刑适用的根据在于其反映了犯罪行为人主观恶性和人身危险性的趋轻变化.“责任分担理论”和“谴责性降低理论”共同为被害人过错影响量刑(死刑适用)提供了完整的诠释框架.被害人存在罪错的是否适用死刑应当分情况处理;被害人存在严重过错的,一般不应判处死刑立即执行;被害人存在一般过错的,应慎用死刑立即执行.如果案件中没有明显的从重情节或者还存在其他从宽情节时,原则上应当判处死缓;被害人存在轻微过错的,一般不足以影响对被告人死刑的适用,但可以与其他从宽情节一起对量刑发挥趋轻作用,从而弱化死刑立即执行的适用;被害人对矛盾激化负有直接责任的,一般不应判处死刑立即执行.     

被害人过错在司法实践中的困境及对策

由于我国刑法研究主要从行为人出发，从而导致被害人过错情节的理论研究相对薄弱，法律规定缺乏，在司法实践的运用存在随意性，被害人过错情节在司法中的地位没有得到重视。文章以一名司法实务工作者的视角，对司法实务中的被害人过错情节的困境和对策进行探讨，以期对被害人过错作出准确的刑法评价。     

Risks of Criminal Victimization in Contemporary Urban China: An Application of Lifestyle/Routine Activities Theory

The philosophical underpinnings of youth courts rest on the notion that youths are less culpable and more reformable than adults. Some scholars argue that, ideally, when sentencing youth crime, judges should engage youthful offenders in moral communication to elicit change. But do they? What more generally do judges say to the youths? This paper analyzes the frequency and content of judicial censure and moral communication in the sentencing of youth sex offenders. Drawing on the sentencing remarks for 55 sexual violence cases, we examine the ways in which judges interact with youths and censure the offenses, and what, if any, normative guidance they give concerning gender, sexuality, and violence. We found that in most but not all cases, the judges censured the offending as both a moral and legal wrong. However, they spent more time discussing a youth’s future than past behavior, as they sought to elicit change. The judges did not degrade or exclude the offenders; rather, they addressed them in a spirit of reintegration, as worthy individuals with future potential. Although the judges set norms of appropriate sexual behavior to the youths when the offense victims were children, they did not always do so when victims were female peers. In this Youth Court, “real rape” was sexual offending by a youth against a child under 12 years of age. By contrast, in about one‐fifth of cases, all of which occurred against a female peer, the offending was censured only as a legal wrong (a “pseudo censure”) and less likely subject to judicial norm setting.     

恢复性司法视野下赔偿与量刑关系的重构

"赔偿从轻"是普遍的司法实践,但其因仅仅关注经济赔偿、脱离刑事和解的大框架而被诟病为"花钱买刑"。以恢复性司法为视角,赔偿与量刑的关系需要重构。赔偿从轻原则应当尽量创造犯罪人与被害人面对面接触的机会、应当以犯罪人充分认识到自己行为的后果为前提、应当以修复犯罪人、被害人与社区之间破损的关系为内涵,司法机关同时应关注对被害人心理健康的修复。     

Outcomes of civil protective orders: results from one state

This study compares final sentencing decisions ordered by judges to federal and state sentencing guidelines for protective order violations. The authors reviewed violations that were pled before the largest district court in Utah and found that in the majority of cases, defendants were not sentenced in accordance with federal and state guidelines. Although state guidelines mandate defendants who violate a protective order to attend a batterer intervention program, less than one fourth of defendants were sentenced to attend such programs. Fewer than half of the defendants were arrested and incarcerated, as opposed to the 100% mandated by state sentencing guidelines. Federal guidelines mandate that all defendants be ordered to surrender firearms, but only six defendants were given that order. This study shows that the judicial system could be more aggressive in improving the safety of victims of intimate partner violence by using the full extent of the sentencing guidelines.     

Sentencing Councils and Victims

This article explores the place victims have, and should have, in bodies that formulate sentencing guidelines, with particular reference to sentencing guidelines in England and Wales and the Sentencing Council's obligation under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to have regard to ‘the impact of sentencing decisions on victims of offences’ when devising guidelines. The issues are situated in political and penological contexts; the place of victims in sentencing commissions or advisory bodies in the USA, England and Australia is analysed and the meaning and significance of the Sentencing Council's obligation towards victims is considered, relating the specific obligation to broader issues concerning the place of victims within bodies that formulate sentencing guidelines. While incorporating victims within sentencing commissions might undermine commissions’ aims, it can play an important role in helping to boost public confidence in criminal justice, a touchstone for all western governments’ criminal justice policies.     

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.     

Sentencing Recommendations by Probation Officers and Judges: An Examination of Adult Offenders Across Gender

Connecting the courtroom workgroup model with attributions and stereotyping based on the focal concerns perspective and gender sentencing literature, the present study investigates the extent to which probation officer recommendations influence judicial sentencing, and whether the gender of the offender further conditions this relationship. Results from logistic and ordinary least squares regression indicate that there is concordance between probation officer recommendations and sentencing by judges. Offender gender has both direct and indirect effects on judicial sentencing through its relationship with probation officer recommendations, and Black males tend to receive lengthier sentences than other race/gender counterparts. These findings provide evidence that probation officer recommendations are an important part of the sentencing process and offer additional insight on how extralegal factors such as gender and race impact criminal justice decision making.     

论传统司法对量刑规范化的启示——以刑事被告与被害人的关系为视角

当前,量刑规范化的试点工作已在全国推开。科学确定各种常见量刑情节及其对基准刑的调节幅度,为最高法院补充、完善各种量刑情节的适用提供参考,是法学理论界和司法实务部门的重要责任。本文以刑事被告与被害人的关系为视角,从中国传统司法的成功经验中,梳理出三大原则,即亲属伦理原则、责任分配原则、补偿原则,发现其对合情合理合法地处理各类刑事案件,实现量刑公正,树立司法公信力,有着重要的指导意义,是祖先留给我们的遗产和智慧。对之进行创造性转化,于当代司法的进一步完善,必大有裨益。     

论罪刑均衡的司法模式

罪刑均衡原则作为刑法的一个重要基本原则,是支撑刑法学发展的一个重要指标。在具体的司法实践中,错综复杂的案情以及层出不穷的社会问题,为实现刑法的公平正义以及追求最为均衡的刑罚裁量,带来了不小困难。现代文明社会要求严格恪守罪刑法定原则,罪刑均衡更成为一个司法层面的问题。然而,司法的过程是复杂的,在司法的过程中,司法界精英们发挥了重要的引导和规范功能。通过对刑罚裁量过程中各种辩证关系的分析和论证,努力寻求一种适合我国国情的罪刑均衡的司法模式。因此,在刑罚裁量的过程中,既要实现公平与效率的平衡,又要从法益侵害及行为人特质二元的衡量标准出发,实现应罚性与需罚性的平衡。最后,以刑罚的效果和民众的接受度作为刑罚适当的重要衡量标准,将刑罚裁量的量刑法理学模式与量刑社会学模式有机结合起来,并建议引入量刑听证制度,从司法的层面积极实现罪刑的均衡。     

认罪认罚案件量刑建议“分类精准”模式之提倡

量刑建议权是公诉权的应有之义,对于认罪认罚案件而言,检察机关提出精准量刑建议是量刑协商的根本要求,不仅不会侵犯审判权而且有利于审判权更加合理地行使,为实现审判中心主义创造条件,具有正当性基础。精准量刑建议包括确定量刑建议和"最小化幅度"量刑建议,按照认罪认罚案件的不同类型,遵循比例原则和诉讼经济原则之间的制约与被制约关系,并根据量刑建议精准化程度与程序简化力度之间成正比、与案件重大程度成反比的关系,构建出"分类精准"模式,分为速裁程序及有期徒刑三年以下简易程序案件的确定量刑建议、有期徒刑三年以上五年以下简易程序案件的确定量刑建议为主"最小化幅度"量刑建议为辅等五种类型。检察机关分类测算精准量刑建议时,在量刑基准上应坚持责任优先主义,根据行为的不法与罪责确定责任刑,并采取"点的理论"确定起点刑和基准刑,把认罪认罚作为独立的预防刑情节予以考量。通过建立与"分类精准"相适应的量刑指南、量刑协商、量刑建议说理、量刑调整等机制,提高量刑建议精准化水准。     

Sentence disparity in the federal courts and the adoption of sentencing guidelines

Pressure in the 1970's to reform the sentencing process can be attributed to a change in perceived public sentiment regarding the utility of treatment and to the belief that sentencing disparity was a severe problem in the sentencing process. Primary reform occurred in the federal judicial system with the development and implementation of rigorous sentencing guidelines. An evaluation of sentencing patterns for one federal judicial district indicates that sentencing disparity was not severe. Most federal offenders are relatively mild and consistently receive relatively mild sentences.