Why Should Remorse be a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing?

This article critically examines the rationales for the well-settled principle in sentencing law that an offender’s remorse is to be treated as a mitigating factor. Four basic types of rationale are examined: remorse makes punishment redundant; offering mitigation can induce remorse; remorse should be rewarded with mitigation; and remorse should be recognised by mitigation. The first three rationales each suffer from certain weaknesses or limitations, and are argued to be not as persuasive as the fourth. The article then considers, and rejects, two arguments against remorse as a mitigating factor in sentencing: that the crime, not the offender, is the focus of punishment; and that the truly remorseful offender would not ask for mitigation. The article concludes with a brief consideration of whether a lack of remorse should be an aggravating factor.

SENTENCING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS IN THE NETHERLANDS: OFFENDER,VICTIM, AND SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES IN CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT*

Empirical investigations of criminal sentencing represent a vast research enterprise in criminology. However, this research has been restricted almost exclusively to U.S. contexts, and often it suffers from key data limitations. As such, an examination of more detailed international sentencing data provides an important opportunity to assess the generalizability of contemporary research and theorizing on criminal punishment in the United States. The current study investigates little-researched questions about the influence of prosecutorial sentencing recommendations, victim/offender relationships, and extralegal disparities in sentencing by analyzing unique data on the punishment of homicide offenders in the Netherlands. The results indicate that offender, victim, and situational offense characteristics all exert important independent effects at sentencing and that prosecutorial recommendations exert powerful influences over judicial sentences. The article concludes with a discussion of future directions for comparative sentencing research across international contexts.     

Penal ideology, sentencing and the legitimacy of trial justice

The paper explores the link between penal ideology and international trial justice from the perspective of sentencing. The argument is based on the premise that the perceived legitimacy of punishment is directly related to effective governance in criminal justice. As such, loss of faith, or lack of moral empathy by individuals and communities with the ideologies, processes and outcomes of punishment compromises the ability of criminal trials to function effectively in maintaining the ‘rule of law’. The paper argues that more emphasis should be given explaining the moral foundations that underpin perceptions of ‘justice’ in sociological accounts of the ‘reality’ of sentencing, and proposes an analytical framework for conceptualising this. Adopting this approach, the paper draws on examples from national and international criminal justice to illustrate how the hegemony of penal ideology and its implementation compromises the ability of sentencing outcomes to resonate with the trial‘s ‘relevant audience’. The paper then focuses on how penal ideology influences the construction of the factual basis for sentencing in international criminal trials, and considers the consequences of this for the perceived ‘legitimacy’ of international trial justice.     

Courts and sentencing research on contemporary China

As a leading player in the international community and the projected economic powerhouse in the twenty-first century, China's significance in the international community has been recognized around the world. The construction of its legal system, particularly the criminal justice system, has also received increasing global attention. As the cornerstone of the criminal justice system, the courts and sentencing laws and practices underlie many of the fundamental ideas of a fair and just legal system. This article reviews research on courts and sentencing in contemporary China published after 1990, focusing on the following three areas: (1) research on law and legal reforms with regard to courts and sentencing; (2) research on the determinants of criminal sentencing; and (3) research on capital punishment.     

Exploring the relationship between sentencing and the legitimacy of trial justice

This paper argues that recent sustained criticism of judicial sentencing in England and Wales reflects a much deeper malaise afflicting the legitimacy of punishment in the late post-modern era. It suggests that this phenomenon not only threatens the liberal-consensus view of the judiciary as pivotal to the rule of law, but also undermines the rationality which underpins conventional paradigms of criminal justice more generally. The paper goes on to argue that there are important lessons to be learned from engaging with the debates about punishment and sentencing which are taking place on the international stage, suggesting that the crisis in domestic sentencing is really symptomatic of a more fundamental crisis in penal legitimacy affecting the whole of civil society; one that touches upon the role of punishment in the governance of so-called democratic states. The paper concludes that the time may have come to modify the predominant neo-liberal paradigm prevalent in western democracies by developing notions of punishment and sentencing as relational contexts which provide meaningful links between trial outcomes and aspirations for justice.     

The triumph of vengeance over retribution: the United States Supreme Court and the death penalty

In this article the author uses a review of Welsh S. White'sThe Death Penalty in the Nineties as a framework for analyzing recent trends in the United States Supreme Court's death penalty jurisprudence. Since 1976 the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment at least in part on the notion that the death penalty serves the useful social purpose of retribution. This article, however, contends that it is imperative to distinguish between retribution and vengeance as rationales for criminal punishment. Modern retributive theory calls for punishments to be guided by considerations of proportionality, fairness, and equality. Vengeance-based punishments, on the other hand, are aimed at satisfying the victim's and society's desire for retaliation and are not limited by the retributive principle that punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the crime and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. The article analyzes recent Supreme Court decisions that are not examined inThe Death Penalty in the Nineties-decisions that allow the introduction of victim-impact evidence into capital sentencing proceedings and permit the death penalty to be imposed on 16-year-old offenders, mentally retarded defendants, and those who neither kill nor intend to kill. These decisions, it is argued, demonstrate that the contemporary Court has bestowed judicial approval on vengeance as an acceptable justification for capital punishment.     

Editorial

This article concerns the problems of proportionality in the theory of punishment. The problem is how to determine whether the severity of a punishment for a criminal offense is proportional to the seriousness of that offense. The resolution to this problem proposed in the article is that, first, one understand punishment as pain or loss intentionally and openly inflicted on someone S in retaliation for something S did, by a person or agent who is at least as powerful as S, and, second, one take such retaliatory pain or loss as, within stable social groups, a means for preserving social order. Accordingly, it is argued that, on this proposal, the measure by which the severity of punishment is determined to be proportional to the seriousness of the crime for which it is inflicted is the minimal amount of pain or loss necessary to preserve social order. Sentencing policies that follow this measure, it is then observed, tend to yield less severe punishments than the policies that classical deterrence theory yields. Finally, the article offers an argument for regarding as morally more defensible sentencing policies whose goal is preserving social order than sentencing policies whose goal is that of classical deterrence theory, which is to achieve the smallest incidence of crimes consistent with not diminishing the overall welfare of society.     

Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sentencing

A basic principle in sentencing offenders is proportionality. However, proportionality judgments are often left to the discretion of the judge, raising familiar concerns of arbitrariness and bias. This paper considers the case for systematizing judgments of proportionality in sentencing by means of an algorithm. The aim of such an algorithm would be to predict what a judge in that jurisdiction would regard as a proportionate sentence in a particular case. A predictive algorithm of this kind would not necessarily undermine justice in individual cases, is consistent with a particularistic account of moral judgment, and is attractive even in the face of uncertainty as to the legitimate purposes of punishment.     

想象竞合的功能及其存在根据

将罪数论升级为竞合论,关键在于要使罪数论的定罪量刑功能转变为竞合论的量刑功能。想象竞合是竞合论中最为重要的成员,它是一个针对自然行为犯数罪如何量刑的理论。在对想象竞合行为定罪时,犯罪构成仍是定罪的惟一标准,因此想象竞合为数罪,在判决书中,要将数罪一一列明。如果对想象竞合数罪并罚,就否定了其存在的必要性。不能对想象竞合数罪并罚的理由,就是想象竞合的存在根据。想象竞合的数罪中,不法量刑情节与特殊预防必要性的情节高度重合,数罪并罚会造成量刑中的重复评价。较轻的一罪在想象竞合的量刑中仍具有一定的发言权,即宣告刑不能低于轻罪的最低刑,同时必须考虑轻罪的附加刑。     

Criminal Justice and Diversionary Programmes in Singapore

The politics of crime and punishment generally pushes Governments to adopt harsher measures to fight crime, yet there is a movement in Singapore toward a softer approach in some areas. Singapore has a robust – many would say tough – criminal justice system, for some aspects of which it has and will continue to receive international criticism. Less known is the fact that it has recently invested in more holistic and compassionate strategies, through criminal diversion programs and community sentencing. This article explains this shift in the context of significant social and political changes taking place in Singapore, heralding a more liberal society and open Government. The paper also engages with some of the theoretical and philosophical arguments in favor of criminal diversion and provides a brief overview of the recent diversionary programs in Singapore.     

重考量刑公正与量刑差异——德阳市五个基层法院的定量研究证据

主流观点认为中国普遍存在量刑差异,但该结论实证依据不足。本文借助于德阳市5个法院的1039个样本,检测盗窃、抢劫、故意伤害罪的量刑情况。研究按四组配对比较后发现,三组法院量刑均衡。盗抢罪量刑受数额、前科、审理程序、自白、律师参与、从严处罚等影响,故意伤害罪因伤害程度、受害人个数、赔偿等有别。2010年量刑意见有助于规范量刑,但法官更倾向于从严处罚。中国未来的量刑改革,还需具体规定如何适用从宽从严集合情节。     

Punishment and Proportionality: Part 2

This article is a companion to an article by the same author in issue 33.3 of Criminal Justice Ethics on the question of the standard by which the severity of punishment is determined to be proportional to the seriousness of the crime for which it is inflicted. Its chief argument is that basing the determination on what the offender deserves to suffer is morally problematic because it conflicts with principles of humanity that call for our taking the good of human beings as our end. By contrast, it is also argued, basing the determination on promoting public safety or preserving civil order is not similarly problematic because punishment inflicted to serve either of these ends is compatible with principles of humanity. The article concludes with a comment on how the harsh sentencing laws enacted in the United States in the past 40 years should be seen as a product of the former mode of determining punishment and not the latter.     

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。     

Retributive Whisper: Communicative Elements in Parole

The aims of retributive or nonutilitarian sentencing are said to conflict with parole as part of a determinate sentencing framework. In this article, we claim that a nonutilitarian approach to punishment does not necessarily conflict with parole. In particular, by adopting core elements of Duff's framework of communicative sentencing, we argue that parole inherently holds a communicative meaning in the form of retributive whisper and can thus be reconciled with a nonutilitarian approach to punishment. In addition, we explore a way to enhance the communicative potential in the parole process and suggest that by recognizing and further incorporating the inherent communicative message in parole we can increase or maximize the board's communicative potential. Finally, we discuss some benefits that can emerge from adapting a communicative sentencing framework to the parole process.     

辩护律师的量刑建议权初探

刑事司法审判中量刑之轻重不仅直接事关被告人的切身利益,而且关乎到能否真正落实罪刑法定原则和罪责刑相适应原则,关系到法律的统一。在当前因刑法法定刑规定幅度较大而致实践中法官量刑畸轻畸重的情况下,赋予维护被告人合法权益的辩护律师以量刑建议权,充分发挥辩护律师的作用,对促进被告人的公正量刑,不仅是必要的,而且也是可行的。     

秦及汉初逃亡犯罪的刑罚适用和处理程序

秦及汉初律令对逃亡犯罪的规定繁复而成体系。逃亡大体可分为一般逃亡和犯罪后逃亡二类。在刑罚适用上,一般逃亡的刑罚因逃亡者身份不同而各异,犯罪逃亡的刑罚是以本罪刑罚为基础,叠加亡罪刑罚后加以确定。在处理程序上,吏、民的一般逃亡不导致审判和追缉程序,刑徒或特别身份人逃亡的,区分亡罪刑罚轻重,分别适用审判并通缉的“论,命之”程序和审判并命令其出现、领受刑罚的“论,令出、会之”程序。犯罪逃亡的,以本罪刑罚为基准,分别适用“论,命之”和“论,令出、会之”程序,后一程序中未按规定领受刑罚的,以刑罚已执行时逃亡来论断其刑。在不同类型逃亡犯罪及司法程序的不同阶段自出的,有处以笞刑、本罪之刑减一等或本罪之刑叠加亡罪之刑后总减一等等不同减刑效果。     

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。     

人身危险性在量刑中的思考

刑事古典学派认为惩罚犯罪就是惩罚犯罪行为,所以提出在量刑中主要考虑的是社会危害性的大小;而刑事人类学派和刑事社会学派注重对犯罪分子个体的研究,从犯罪个体中去研究惩罚的力度,在量刑的时候着重考察犯罪分子的人身危险性的大小.两者的争论由来已久,在中国的刑法理论界就是主要采取了刑事古典学派的观点,认为惩罚力度大小应该与罪行的大小相适应,造成的社会危害程度决定刑罚的轻重.那么对于犯罪分子的人身危险性在量刑时的作用究竟应该有多大呢?试从实践入手,针对我国现行法律的规定来阐述一下人身危险性在量刑中的作用,从而完善我国刑法的量刑原则.     

Subjective Proximity to Crime or Social Representations? Explaining Sentencing Attitudes in Switzerland

Lay sentencing attitudes are considered in the light of two theoretical perspectives. The first perspective views sentencing attitudes as parts of broader sets of social representations anchored in one’s position in the social structure. The second perspective explains sentencing attitudes by their subjective experiences of crime. This paper tests both theories by performing a series of multiple regressions on two dimensions of sentencing: punishment goals and severity of punishment. Empirical data comes from a quantitative survey conducted in Switzerland. Findings reveal that indicators of subjective proximity to crime largely account for sentencing attitudes. Nevertheless, social representations of crime measured by causes of crime also have a significant impact on sentencing attitudes. Implications of these findings for sentencing in Western democracies are discussed.