论量刑建议

量刑建议源于起诉权中的量刑请求权,它具有启动量刑程序、制约量刑裁判、明确证明责任、预设监督标尺的效力,对于提高量刑的公开性、公正性和公信力,保障当事人诉讼权利,强化对量刑裁判的制约监督,提高公诉质量和水平,都具有重要意义,同时也给检察机关带来严峻的挑战。以域外量刑建议相关制度和实践为参照,我国量刑建议制度构建应在量刑建议的范围、方式、时机与形式、决策与修正等方面作出设计。为适应量刑建议给刑事诉讼带来的影响,我国刑事诉讼庭审程序、证据展示等方面应予改革完善。     

检察机关量刑建议工作对策研究——呼和浩特市人民检察院量刑建议工作情况的完善

正检察机关量刑建议对法院的量刑结果虽不具有必然约束力,但其具有启动量刑程序、制约法官量刑裁判、预设监督标尺的重要作用,对提高量刑的公开性、公正性和公信力,保障当事人诉讼权利,强化对量刑裁判的制约监督等都具有重要意义。一、量刑建议的定义和作用学界认为,量刑建议是指在刑事诉讼中,检察机关对提起公诉的刑事案件,依据事实和法律,综合被告人实施的犯罪行为的危害程度和人身危险,依据我国《刑法》规定的刑罚幅度,对于被告人所应处以刑罚,包括刑罚种类、刑期、附加刑以及执行方式等方面提出具体检     

量刑监督存在的问题及完善

单纯提出量刑建议并不等同于量刑监督,检察机关需要关注诉讼过程中一切可能影响公正量刑的因素和环节。量刑监督不是审判之上的监督,需要的是检察机关的深度参与。检察机关在全面收集量刑证据和保障被害方参与量刑过程上负有义务;同时,应当将对法院认定的辩护方量刑证据的真实性和量刑裁判的说理作为量刑监督的重点,只有将二者结合,不断提高自身的调查能力、加强知情权的建设,才能实现促进量刑公正、约束法官量刑自由裁量权的监督目的。     

浅析量刑建议制度

行使量刑建议权是强化法律监督的职能作用、维护社会公平与正义的重要手段。量刑建议制度的构建有助于从程序上保障量刑公正,节约司法资源,提高诉讼效率,保障诉讼参与人的合法权益,从而最终维护社会的公平与正义。本文从量刑建议制度的意义、对量刑建议可行性的操作、完善量刑的建议等方面来探讨,期望能有助于量刑制度的构建与完善。     

量刑建议的实践与思考

量刑建议权的行使对于完善公诉权，增加量刑透明度，制约审判权，保障司法公正，深化庭审改革，减少不必要的上诉、抗诉，提高诉讼效率等均具有积极意义。同时量刑建议试行中也存在一些不容忽视的问题，需要认真总结，以期使这项制度进一步完善和规范。     

量刑建议制度:现实与未来——一个实证角度的研究

检察官量刑建议制度是制约法官量刑自由裁量权的重要方式,也是确保量刑公正的重要手段。通过对某基层检察院量刑建议施行情况调研资料的分析可以看出:实务界对量刑建议采纳率存在误读、程序设置背离诉讼效率、辩护权并未加强、量刑建议中的刑期计算存在不合理性和不规范性等一系列问题。应以公正和效率两大诉讼价值为主线,寻求解决我国检察官量刑建议实务困境之路径。     

从量刑建议权的价值取向谈如何开展量刑建议改革

当前,法院自由裁量权日益扩张,已出现了可能被滥用的危险。开展量刑建议改革的价值取向是加强对法院自由裁量权的监督与制约。规则、机制和能力缺陷是制约其价值充分实现的三大障碍。量刑建议改革应当围绕构建抗诉、量刑建议、宏观监督“三位一体”的量刑监督工作机制,以营造量刑建议改革环境、加强量刑规则研究等为重点,积极有效地开展。     

论量刑建议制度

量刑建议权是公诉权的有机组成部分,是公诉权的应有之义,是一种司法请求权,不具备实体性的法律效果,不侵犯法院的审判权。在多数国家和地区,检察机关的量刑建议权都被广泛肯定。量刑建议制度有利于保障量刑公正,节约司法资源,提高诉讼效率。我国刑事诉讼法没有规定量刑建议制度是一大缺憾。我国建立量刑建议制度具有相应的理论基础、法律依据和政策基础。刑事诉讼法再修改应当借鉴有关国家和地区的立法,科学构建我国的量刑建议制度。     

刑事司法裁判的三种形态

定罪裁判、量刑裁判和程序性裁判的相对分离,是我国刑事诉讼制度发生的重大改革。这三种司法裁判程序具有各自的诉讼形态和构造,并在刑事诉讼法和司法解释中具有一系列的程序保障。这三种司法裁判形态的出现,在很大程度上改变了原有的诉讼格局,大大拓展了公诉制度的内涵和外延,丰富了刑事辩护的基本形态,对于刑事证据规则的多元化也起到了重要的推动作用。对这三种司法裁判形态进行全面研究,对于我们深入揭示刑事审判的规律具有极大的理论意义。     

量刑建议权初探

量刑建议制度是随着近年来司法改革的深入而逐渐提出并试行的一项制度。所谓量刑建议制度,是指检察官在法官对被告人作出量刑裁判之前,综合考虑被告人的犯罪事实、性质、情节及其他相关政策,依法对被告人适用的刑罚种类、幅度向法官提供参考性意见的制度。量刑建议制度在刑事诉讼中进行了一系列具有开创性的实践和探索。本文拟通过对当前量刑建议制度的来源、目的、实践经验、存在问题等方面进行分析,并探讨进一步完善量刑建议制度的路径。     

量刑建议制度探析——以重庆市A区检察院量刑建议工作为调查分析样本

量刑建议制度在试行过程中逐渐暴露出定罪建议权限设置低于量刑建议权、量刑建议随起诉书移送导致出现因量刑理由变化影响量刑的准确性、量刑建议在庭审中提出的阶段缺乏统一规定等制度设计上的缺陷,以及面临量刑建议与法院判决存在一定偏差、量刑建议是否被采纳受法院内部标准和刑事政策变化的影响大、法院就低采纳量刑建议、量刑建议未完全纳入判决书等制度运行中的弊端。应当建立量刑建议听取辩护人和被害人意见的制度,取消量刑建议讨论程序,实行庭前证据开示,赋予公诉人在法庭上改变或者撤回量刑建议权,将量刑建议采纳情况作为抗诉依据,设置科学合理的量刑建议考核标准。     

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。     

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。     

Guess who's coming to dinner? A preliminary model for the satisfaction of public opinion as a legitimate aim in sentencing

This paper provides a preliminary outline of a possible model of how the satisfaction of public opinion could be used in a rational system of sentencing. As public opinion data concerning the criminal justice system is becoming increasingly sophisticated and readily available, and public opinion clearly plays a role in the sentencing decision, a model whereby the satisfaction of public opinion may be judiciously and effectively incorporated into the sentencing system is urgently required. Some of the pitfalls of using public opinion data are also highlighted as a caveat to the feasibility of such a model. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Parole: How it is working

This paper presents some relevant information on parole and on several determinate sentencing proposals. Guidelines formulated by the United States Parole Commission demonstrate that release decisions can be structured to (1) enhance equity, (2) facilitate the explanation for decision variance, and (3) expose decision policy to public evaluation and debate. Empirically, parolees have a higher success rate or lower proportion of new convictions than those released in other ways. In contrast, the determinate sentencing proposals merely displace discretion to other areas of the criminal justice system where it is less visible and, hence, less subject to control.     

News media influences on public views of sentencing

Opinion polls in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and elsewhere suggest that most members of the public would like their criminal courts to be harsher. Does media coverage of criminal sentencing contribute to a preference for harsher sentencing? Most people derive their information about sentencing from the news media and content analyses of news stories in Canada and the United States demonstrate that crimes of violence and sentences of imprisonment are overrepresented. Moreover, the news media provide little systematic information about the sentencing process or its underlying principles. This article reports the results of three studies examining the effects of media coverage on public opinion about sentencing. Subjects who read actual newspaper stories about sentencing that appeared in Canadian newspapers rated most reported sentences as too lenient. However, the specific account they read influenced their leniency judgments. Furthermore, in one experiment, participants assigned to read a newspaper account of a sentencing decision supported harsher sentences than participants who read a summary of actual court documents from the sentencing hearing.     

论相对独立的量刑程序

量刑程序的正当性与量刑程序与定罪程序分离的可行性属于两个不同层面的问题。现阶段我国尚不具备将定罪与量刑程序完全分离的制度条件，而只能构建相对独立的量刑程序，即在法庭审理的主要环节，将定罪与量刑活动相对分离。在将量刑活动纳入法庭审理程序时，应当注意处理好量刑建议与量刑裁量权之间的关系。     

The place of public fear in sentencing and correctional policy

Public opinion about sentencing and correctional issues has emerged in recent decades as a salient topic in criminology. Empirical studies have suggested that the public has dynamic perceptions about these criminal justice issues. Sentencing and correctional policy have become key issues confronting legislators and policymakers, as correctional budgets and public interest in these areas have increased. Despite the focus on public opinion about sentencing and corrections, previous research has largely ignored how the public feels about the role of policymakers regarding these issues, and what influences opinions about whether public fear should be an important consideration in policy decisions. The current study partly replicated the work of Cullen and colleagues by examining perceptions of crime salience, crime causation, goals of the criminal justice system, and attitudes towards imprisonment and rehabilitation. It uniquely examined perceptions about the importance of legislator consideration of a specific determinant, namely, public fear, in decision making about sentencing and correctional policy.     

Using psychology to control law

Legal decision makers often fail to make use of relevant psychological research. In two areas, deceptive advertising and criminal sentencing, legal decision makershave welcomed social science research. In each, the research provided has been substantially flawed. Using a commercial that several courts evaluated for deception, I illustrate how the typical study that purports to measure deception produces results that are unnecessarily ambibuous. Then, based on research that looks closely at public responses to criminal cases, I show that the frequently cited survey measures of public preference reflect sentencing preferences for unrepresentative stereotypic criminal offenders. The weaknesses demonstated in these examples suggest that psychologists can present legal decision makers with a more accurate picture of human perceptions and preferences. If researchers present legal decision makers with informative research when the relevance of research is acknowledged, legal decision makers are likely to become more receptive and more knowledgeable when a new question warrants the application of social science evidence.An earlier version of this paper was delivered as the presidential address for Division 41, the American Psychology—Law Society, at the 1988 American Psychological Association meetings in Atlanta, Georgia.