从四个维度审视量刑规范化改革的时代性

指导全国量刑规范化改革的两个规范性文件<人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)>和"两高三部"<关于规范量刑程序若干问题的意见(试行)>自2010年10月1日起已在全国法院全面试行.这标志着量刑规范化改革已进入全面试行阶段.作为新中国刑事法制发展进程中的一件大事,量刑规范化改革对于规范司法行为,统一法律适用标准,促进公正廉洁司法...     

专家学者谈量刑规范化改革

经过长期的理论研讨和工作试点,最高人民法院决定从今年10月1日起,在全国范围内全面推行量刑规范化改革,执行《人民法院量刑指导意见（试行）》和“两高三部”《关于规范量刑程序若干问题的意见（试行）》两个文件。按照最高人民法院的说明,这次改革的目的在于通过规范司法行为,统一法律适用标准,促进公正廉洁司法,提高法院的公信力和权威。     

量刑监督制度构建:程序、实体同步推进

受观念、立法、司法实践等多重因素影响,量刑监督是检察机关诉讼活动法律监督的一个薄弱环节,因而应从实体和程序两方面推进量刑监督制度的构建:实体上,应由全国人大常委会以立法解释的形式统一发布量刑标准,作为法院量刑和检察机关量刑监督统一适用的依据;应深化量刑方法改革,完善量刑情节适用,进一步规范法官的量刑裁量权。程序上,新刑事诉讼法在法庭审理程序中增加了量刑的内容,量刑程序相关的配套制度应及时跟进。     

量刑规范化改革与实践

规范裁量权,将量刑纳入法庭审理程序(简称量刑规范化改革)是中央确定的重要司法改革项目,也是人民法院第三个五年改革纲要的重要内容,是当前刑事审判改革的焦点热点问题。经过多年调研论证和试点,最高人民法院于今年9月出台了《人民法院量刑指导意见     

聚焦刑罚裁量权之变

定罪和量刑是刑事审判的两个基本环节。＂规范自由裁量权,将量刑纳入法庭审理程序＂（简称＂量刑规范化改革＂）,是我国司法体制改革的重要内容。     

从量刑程序规范化角度看司法公正

作为一项全新的司法活动,量刑规范化改革源于中央提出的"规范裁量权将量刑纳入法庭审理程序"。本文立足于量刑程序规范化与司法公正的关系,从量刑程序的公正、独立是实现司法公正的保证,控辩双方对量刑程序的充分参与是实现司法公正的途径等角度论述其在保证法官自由裁量权的正确行使,依法审理,规范量刑,严格执法,保证个案的公平正义,进而达到促进社会和谐、维护社会稳定、保证司法昌明、实现司法公正的作用。     

量刑方法的理解与适用

规范裁量权,将量刑纳入法庭审理程序(简称量刑规范化改革)是中央确定的重要司法改革项目,也是《人民法院第三个五年改革纲要》的重要内容,是当前刑事司法改革的焦点问题。自2010年10月1日起,由最高人民法院发布的《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》和两高三部联合发布的《关于规范量刑程序若干问题的意见(试行)》在全国范围内试行,量刑规范化改革由部分法院试点正式走向全面推广适用的阶段。在此项改革全面试行将满一周年之际,本期特别策划量刑规范化改革研究专题,深度关注量刑规范化改革动态,以期有力促进改革成果的正确理解和有效实施,从而充分发挥最高人民法院机关刊服务审判、指导实践的作用。基于此,本刊特邀最高人民法院量刑规范化改革项目组成员、刑三庭陈学勇审判长和项目组成员、中国应用法学研究所李玉萍研究员撰写专门文章,围绕量刑规范化改革所涉实体和程序问题进行深入讨论,澄清模糊认识,明确改革思路,促进量刑公正。现呈上陈学勇审判长撰写的量刑方法的理解与适用、李玉萍研究员撰写的量刑程序改革的回顾与展望以及重庆市第一中级人民法院李生龙副院长等同志撰写的规范量刑自由裁量权的基本方式等三篇文章,以飨读者。     

论量刑规范化改革

《关于规范量刑程序若干问题的意见（试行）》的实施,使量刑规范化改革活动在全国开展开来。这一改革将进一步规范量刑活动、规范法官裁量权,将量刑纳入法庭审理程序,引入量刑建议,增强了法院量刑公开性与透明度。量刑规范化改革,将会对法院的裁判、检查机关的量刑建议权和律师的辩护权产生积极的影响。     

浅议量刑规范化改革

随着刑事审判活动的不断实践深入,法官被赋予自由裁量刑罚的权利,然而目前我国没有任何法律规定法官的刑事自由裁量权,这一领域的法律尚处空白,总结实践经验规范司法运作现状是现行及未来法治的必然要求。量刑规范化改革,旨在＂规范自由裁量权,将量刑纳入法庭审理程序＂,是规范司法运作的有效举措,具有相当的适时性和必要性。     

辩护人量刑建议权：一个被忽略的问题

刑事司法审判中量刑的轻重不仅直接关系被告人的切身利益,而且关系到能否真正落实罪刑法定原则和罪责刑相适应原则,关系到刑法适用的统一。近年来,刑事审判的量刑问题受到了越来越多的关注．法官在量刑方面自由裁量权逐步被规范。2009年6月1日,最高人民法院出台了《人民法院量刑指导意见（试行）》和《人民法院量刑程序指导意见（试行）》,对人民法院的量刑行为和程序进行了规范。     

Do Criminal Court Outcomes Vary by Juvenile Transfer Mechanism? A Multi-Jurisdictional,Multilevel Analysis

In recent decades, the number of juvenile defendants transferred to criminal court has increased dramatically, in large measure due to an expansion of available transfer mechanisms. While transfer traditionally occurred by judicial waiver of jurisdiction, alternatives have emerged and eclipsed judicial waiver as the primary route to adult court. The present study examines whether the mechanism of waiver—judicial, prosecutorial, or legislative—affects sentencing outcomes for juvenile defendants transferred to adult court. Results from multilevel models that control for state-level variation indicate that sentencing outcomes are inextricably tied to method of transfer. Most notably, non-criminal outcomes are most likely for cases that arrive in criminal court by legislative waiver. This suggests that legislative waiver is an ineffective means of sending juvenile offenders to criminal court, and provides some empirical support for the notion that judicial waiver is the most appropriate method of transfer.     

中国量刑程序改革：误区与正道

对抗化的量刑程序改革试点效果不尽如意,某种程度上可以归因于制度改革所赖于支撑的理论根据。该理论认为,量刑制度的主要问题是量刑程序不公正,解决之道是借鉴英美模式,建立对抗式量刑程序。然而,真正引起社会普遍关注乃至广泛质疑的是量刑不均衡与量刑僵化问题,这主要是实体法问题;认为英美法系在传统上采用对抗式量刑程序的观点在一定程度上也是对英美法系量刑制度与实践的误读。未来的量刑制度改革应以实体性改革为主,程序性改革为辅;而在量刑程序改革方面,不宜大改,可以小改或微调。     

人民法院司法改革的基本理论与实践进程

人民法院司法改革是社会主义法治国家建设的重要组成部分。值此纪念改革开放三十周年之际,为了深入推进人民法院司法改革,促进中国特色社会主义司法制度的科学发展,我们有必要回顾三十年来人民法院司法改革的发展历程,梳理人民法院司法改革的思想理论与实践进程,总结人民法院司法改革的基本成就、经验与教训,并在此基础上展望新时期新阶段人民法院司法改革的前景和趋势。     

审判中心视角下的行政诉讼制度构造

"以审判为中心"的政法政策同样适用于行政诉讼制度改革,它要求法院发挥自身司法能力和司法制度能力,有效地介入涉法行政争议之中,并藉此保护法益。在行政诉讼中,司法权与行政权之间是法律监督上的国家权力结构关系。法院优位于行政机关,法院作为独立裁判者指挥诉讼管理关系和裁判过程。以审判为中心的行政诉讼制度构造,应最大限度地发挥法院司法能力在解决行政争议上的优位角色,应完整地发挥行政诉讼法的制度能力,即发挥立法、司法解释、司法组织及指导性案例的制度功能。行政诉讼司法准入、行政机关负责人出庭应诉、诉讼管辖、庭审制度等,是否体现了"以审判为中心"的制度改革方向,主要看其是否有利于行政争议的实质解决和法益有效保护。"多元化纠纷解决机制"政策和行政行为合法性审查为中心的行政诉讼制度,影响了法院的诉讼角色和功能。回归司法权和诉讼制度本质,宜在行政争议、行政行为和法益之间构造出一致性的诉讼结构关系;宜从组织和体制改革转向程序改革,发挥行政程序和司法程序在塑造司法公正和司法效率上的作用。     

民事庭审程序中的若干问题研究

民事庭审是整个诉讼活动的核心,庭审制度改革是诉讼改革的契机和重要内容,其成败直接关系到司法公正与诉讼效率问题。因此对于集中审理和举证时限的关系、法庭调查和法庭辩论的分立、法庭调查的控制以及法官认证等问题从理论和实践层面进行分析,对于民事庭审程序改革具有十分重要的意义。     

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.     

FAMILY COURT REFORM IN SIX PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES

This article describes judicial behavior in local family court reform movements, vis-à-vis six case studies, as part of a larger study on the implementation of court-connected custody mediation in Pennsylvania. Research findings provide new insight into the initiation of change by judges at the local court level. When motivated to do so, family court judges in Pennsylvania bring about local reform independently and expeditiously. Judges who desire alternative methods to litigation of custody disputes implement court change with few organizational constraints: They decide how and when reform is to be implemented, and they assign nonjudicial professionals to assist in reform implementation. Finally, judges establish their own criteria for assessing the success of change initiated. Throughout reform movements, judges take on a variety of roles in bringing about change—first as reform activists, then as leaders in reform movements, and finally, as advisors in reform implementation. These case studies reveal the diversity in judicial style when court change is implemented; at the same time, similar court goals and objectives are obtained.     

Judicial Reform and Rationalization: The Diffusion of Court Reform Policies Among the American States

Explaining the diffusion of judicial reform policies among the American states is an elusive task. Are such policies simply part of the larger policy process revealed in the comparative state policy literature? Or b court reform a policy arena unto itself, responding to factors uniquely legal or professional in nature? Our inquiry begins with Max Weber's sociology of law from which we adopt his concept of rationalization as a schema of policy development. According to Weber, the “rationalization” of legal institutions would accompany the advancement of capitalism in modernizing nations. Thus, we might expect specific judicial reform policies expressly aimed at rationalizing the structure and process of state court systems to be closely associated with each other and with commonly accepted indicators of economic development among the states. As part of our investigation, we relate court reforms to broader policy innovations among the states, drawing on earlier “diffusion of innovations” research. Our data indicate a strong connection between judicial reform and more general patterns of innovation diffusion among the states, but provide only modest support for Weber's assertions about the rationalization of legal systems under advancing capitalism. Three of the selected reforms cluster together and are largely explainable by indicators of economic development. Two other reforms do not fit this pattern, and their “behavior” requires additional discussion and research. Thus, the diffusion of judicial reform policy is partly accounted for by factors found in explanations of general policy innovations across states, but other, as yet unidentified, factors apparently influence certain aspects of judicial reform. The connection between Max Weber's legal sociology and policy development among the American states might at first blush seem remote or tenuous. However, this article attempts to use Weber's insights into modern legal systems to (1) examine a specific area of state policy making–judicial reform–and (2) establish a connection between policy development in the court reform area and the larger literature on general policy innovation in the American states. This inquiry is inspired by the lack of theoretical integration apparent in the literature on court reform, on the one hand, and the absence of empirical analyses connecting court reform data with “diffusion of innovation” policy studies, on the other.     

The Achievements and Prospects of Court Reforms in China

Judicial reform has become an important issue of Chinese people. At the end of 2004, “The Preliminary Comment on the Judicial System and Working Mechanism form the Central Leading ‘Group of Judicial System Reform’” is conferred by the central group of judicial reform. This paper analyses the achievements China has made in the last five years, especially in the area of court reform, judge reform, evidence reform, judge reform. Beyond this, this paper also expounds the prospect of China’s judicial reform in improving the judicial independence, the judge quality, the court organization reforms and the reforms in evidence system. This paper is based on Wang Liming, “Some suggestions to the judicial reform”, Juris Review (Vol. 4, 2005) (in chinese)