量刑规范化：法官量刑自由裁量权合理行使的路径

法官量刑自由裁量权兼具实现刑罚的社会正义与个别正义、权衡量刑的合法性与合理性的重要价值，同时，量刑自由裁量权的不当行使也会带来擅断裁判、机械裁判、司法腐败等负效应。因此，如何规范法官量刑自由裁量权的合理行使便成为了一个世界性课题。美国的《量刑指南》对规范法官量刑自由裁量权的行使作出了卓有成效的探索，对我国量刑规范的制定具有重要的参考性。在我国现有的法制环境下，我们量刑规则的制定应坚持先易后难、先急后缓、先粗疏后精细的原则．在实证分析既有判例和经验的基础上．逐步构建起与我国法律制度相适应的量刑模式。     

独立量刑程序的价值分析

定罪与量刑是我国刑事审判中的两个极为重要的问题,实现定罪的准确性与量刑的合理性是整个刑事审判活动最基本的要求。司法实践中,被告人罪名的认定与量刑轻重都是法官自由裁量权行使的结果,由于法律规定的量刑幅度宽泛,在量刑问题上受法官的自由裁量权的影响更大,相应被滥用的可能性也就更大,也就更迫切需要有效的约束机制。     

略论量刑情节的把握

定罪和量刑是具有同样重要性的两个方面,二者是刑法的基本范畴,构成了刑法的基本内容。我国现行刑法中采取了是相对不定期刑,法官在审理具体案件时,享有一定的自由裁量权,但这样一种自由裁量权的行使也应当有一定的尺度和标准,否则难免陷入滥用裁量权的泥潭难以自拔。本文拟就量刑情节的若干问题进行研究,以期对量刑的规范化有所助益。     

试论量刑规范化中法官自由裁量权的行使

随着社会的进步和群众法治意识的增强，一些热点案件如何量刑引起社会各界的广泛关注，使得量刑规范化从幕后走上了前台，但也使审判实践中行使自由裁量权的规范性，以及在量刑过程中产生的一系列问题受到公众质疑。目前个别刑事索件量刑畸轻畸重，社会公众对此反映强烈，使人民司法审判的公信力和权威性受到影响．本文试从量刑规范化改革现状，并结合法官自由裁量权的行使中存在的问题作简要分析，望有助于量刑规范化的实施。     

法官量刑自由裁量权在我国的适用与规制

我国刑事法律规定的量刑宽泛等特点赋予了法官很大的自由裁量权,导致实务中法官滥用量刑自由裁量权等现象的出现,如何规制量刑自由裁量权?除从立法及司法解释方面着手外,还可建立适当的判例制度及法官量刑展示制度。     

量刑自由裁量权述论

自由裁量权包括刑事实体法上的自由裁量权和刑事程序法上的自由裁量权,统称审判(ｔｒｉａｌ)自由裁量权。量刑(ｓｅｎｔｅｎｃｅ)自由裁量权则是其中实体法权利之一,①指法官在法律规定的范围内,对业已定罪的犯罪分子是否判处刑罚以及判处什么样的刑罚的酌情裁决权。一、量刑自由裁量权的范围量刑自由裁量权是一个法学概念,因而不同的角度有不同的类型范围。首先,从裁量权的形成依据看,量刑自由裁量权包括立法法定和司法释定的自由裁量权。立法法定的自由裁量权指刑法明文法定的弹性量刑规范或量刑幅度。例如德国１９７６年刑法第２１３条就…     

浅论规范量刑自由裁量权的制度与实践

我国刑法和司法实践表明,虽然量刑活动会受到诸多因素制约,但法官仍享有较大的自由裁量权。而较大的自由裁量权存在消极、负面的影响。因此,必须健全和完善量刑程序和量刑制度,规范量刑自由裁量权。     

试论量刑建议权

目前,法官在量刑过程中面临着这样一种困境,一方面,刑法规定的刑罚幅度比较大;另一方面,各类案件的复杂性日益加深。这就造成了法官在量刑时量刑失当现象时有发生,法官自由裁量权反而限定了法官正确量刑的发挥。因此,量刑建议作为一种监督法官自由裁量权的有效手段正得以越来越多在司法实务中运用,理论界也进行着积极的探索。本文尝试从量刑建议权的涵义、价值及我国司法操作构想来具体分析,作出有益的探索。     

人民检察院量刑建议规范化研究

长期以来,刑事审判的量刑权一直被法官认为是法院的专项权力,检察机关只重视定罪请求权,忽略了量刑请求权的行使。研究分析量刑建议司法改革实践中面临的困境,并藉此总结经验,更好地解决检察机关量刑建议规范化中存在的问题,保证量刑建议的良性运转,以求强化公诉权、扩展辩护权、规范自由裁量权,最终实现量刑的公开、公平和公正,弘扬司法正义。     

论量刑建议对刑罚裁量权运用的动态监督

检察机关提出的量刑建议作为量刑程序的起点及重要架构，一方面通过正确行使量刑建议权、有效开展量刑辩论来约束法官的自由裁量权，促进量刑的公正与合理，同时打破以往对量刑结果进行事后监督的模式，将量刑监督运用于刑事审判过程中，拓宽了开展刑事审判监督的途径。本文试结合实践，从具体制度设计上进一步阐述如何通过量刑建议权的运用对刑罚裁量权形成动态监督。     

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。     

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。     

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     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

原则、自由裁量与依法裁判

由于原则与强自由裁量的天然关联,基于原则的裁判具有非常强的任意性。如果不对这种自由裁量进行有效的限制,那么原则裁判很容易导向恣意裁判,尤其在同规则矛盾时适用原则的举动将会引发更大的问题。目前限制原则裁判的两个主要条件即穷尽规则和个案裁量,均存在严重的理论困难,这就要求必须寻找全新的限制条件。这些新的条件主要包括:普遍性条件、比例原则以及不得违反法律体系性要求。