THE APPRENDI‐BLAKELY CASES: SENTENCING REFORM COUNTER REVOLUTION?

Recent Supreme Court decisions have extended jury trial rights and beyond‐reasonable‐doubt proof standards to certain sentence‐enhancement facts. The first two cases, Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona, were narrow in scope and relatively uncontroversial. But Blakely v. Washington marked a substantial expansion of the rationale and scope of Apprendi, and threatened to invalidate entire sentencing reform systems, both legally‐binding guidelines of the type at issue in Blakely and it's sequel, Booker v. United States, and statutory determinate sentence systems like the one invalidated in Cunningham v. California. Each of these decisions has potential effects not only on sentencing severity and disparity in the cases controlled by that decision, but also on prosecutorial, legislative, and sentencing commission measures designed to comply with the decision, avoid it, and/or mitigate its impact. Field resistance and avoidance measures are likely to be stronger in jurisdictions where the existing sentencing system enjoyed broad support; in such jurisdictions, resistance may be particularly strong to the more controversial Blakely ruling. Impact assessments must therefore carefully distinguish the separate impacts of Apprendi and Blakely in each jurisdiction being studied, and the extent of support for the existing sentencing system. Such assessments should also examine pre‐existing trends and other independent sources of change; leadership by sentencing commissions or other officials in crafting responsive measures; structural and other features of the sentencing system which render compliance more or less difficult; and second‐stage effects, on sentencing, prosecutorial, or sentencing policy decisions, that reflect the prior compliance, avoidance, and mitigation measures adopted in that jurisdiction. The greatest long‐term effects may be on prosecutorial, legislative, and commission decisions, rather than on sentencing outcomes.     

论量刑信息的调查

确保量刑信息得到全面、准确的调查,是量刑程序改革所要解决的一项重大课题。中国迄今没有引进"量刑前报告"的可能性,也难以将少年司法中的"社会调查报告"推广到"成年人案件"的量刑程序之中。在量刑建议制度的推行中,一直存在着"重量刑结果、轻量刑信息"的问题,而律师在从事量刑辩护过程中也对量刑信息的搜集不予重视,也缺乏相应的制度保障。被害方对量刑程序的参与不仅具有必要性,而且也可以向法庭提供新的量刑信息。为实现量刑裁决的公正性,为了使法官在量刑上的自由裁量权受到有效的规范和制约,法院有必要对量刑信息的调查确立更为合理的程序。     

量刑程序改革的实体法支撑

在刑法理论上必须对量刑基准、量刑情节等问题进行研究,才能为量刑程序的改革提供实体上的支持,从而在量刑环节确立争论点,增强控辩对抗,为法官准确量刑提供素材。没有实体法上的支撑,围绕量刑程序的所有美好设计都可能落空。目前流行的关于量刑基准的各种实务理解均存在诸多不足;寻找量刑基准的方法应当是实证分析法;量刑基准的确立,需要检察官、法官、学者的通力合作。量刑情节具有两面性,对量刑情节的判断可能受非理性因素的影响。在多个逆向情节并存的情况下,立足于抵消说的"综合判断说"基本上是合理的。     

论量刑程序证明模式的选择

量刑事实作为案件事实的重要组成部分,其能否得到全面、准确的调查,取决于量刑证据的适用。要确定量刑程序适用的证据规则,首先要确定量刑事实应该采用的证明模式,证明模式的选择事关量刑裁判的公正性、科学性,是量刑程序进一步改革所面临的实践难题,也是不可回避的重要理论课题。对法定量刑事实采用严格证明模式,对酌定量刑事实采用自由证明模式,符合法律的现行规定,有利于刑罚目的的实现,有利于维护法律的权威。     

论量刑程序证明模式的选择

量刑事实作为案件事实的重要组成部分,其能否得到全面、准确的调查,取决于量刑证据的适用。要确定量刑程序适用的证据规则,首先要确定量刑事实应该采用的证明模式,证明模式的选择事关量刑裁判的公正性、科学性,是量刑程序进一步改革所面临的实践难题,也是不可回避的重要理论课题。对法定量刑事实采用严格证明模式,对酌定量刑事实采用自由证明模式,符合法律的现行规定,有利于刑罚目的的实现,有利于维护法律的权威。     

Measuring and Explaining Charge Bargaining

Charge bargaining is a potentially important form of discretion in criminal sentencing that is obscured in many studies of sentencing outcomes. Our procedure to measure the difference in sentencing outcomes caused by plea bargain emphasizes the amount, in months, that the sentence length is reduced. Using this measure, we compare prosecutorial discretion across counties in two different states. We conclude that charge bargaining plays an empirically important role in determining sentencing outcomes. Furthermore, we find that measuring the distance (in months of prison time) moved during a charge bargain may provide a very different estimate of the discretion than is given by the rate of bargaining, which is the usual measure used. Although the rate of charge bargaining was higher in the voluntary guidelines state, its impact on sentences was greater in the presumptive guidelines jurisdiction, as predicted by Reitz (1998). We further observe a dramatic difference in predictions from shifting the case characteristics underlying the summary measure. This result reveals that distributional differences (either due to the underlying criminal activity or due to the overall level of severity of punishment) can easily obscure the inferences necessary for understanding the operation of the systems. Our finding of differential charge bargaining in these two jurisdictions should provide a caution when comparing the results of studies of disparity in sentencing across jurisdiction types.

论量刑证据独立性的基础

受同态复仇的量刑模式影响，法定化量刑在相当长历史时期内存在。其导致刑事审判基本多集中于如何定罪，形成了服务于定罪，以定罪证明为中心的传统刑事证据法。量刑的精细化和传播的大众化，使得量刑公正和量刑均衡的重要性逐渐凸显．从而为量刑证据从幕后走向台前提供历史机遇。量刑的目标追求和指导原则是量刑事实特殊性的基础．量刑事实构成的...     

论量刑情节的适用和基准刑的确定

中段论假定,均质化的、排除任何情节的"裸"的犯罪行为类型,其客观的法益侵害还是主观的人身危险都是中间程度的,但是这一假设不能成立。因此,基准刑应当针对具体罪行分别确定,而不能按照法定刑的中点抽象地、简单地确定。而适用量刑情节时,基准刑应当为起点刑,在从重从轻情节竞合情形,在量化的前提下,可以通过加减方式量刑,但是在适用减轻情节时,必须把握减轻处罚优先原则。     

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。     

Transgression Wrongfulness Outweighs its Harmfulness as a Determinant of Sentence Severity

When students suggest sentences for criminal offenders, do they rely more heavily on the harmfulness or on the wrongfulness of the offender's conduct? In Study 1, 116 Princeton University undergraduates rated the harmfulness and wrongfulness of, and suggested appropriate sentences for, a series of crimes. As expected, participants emphasized wrongfulness when choosing an appropriate criminal punishment. In Study 2, 33 Princeton undergraduates made similar ratings for violations of the University Honor Code, and rated their contempt for fabricated amendments to the Code that required sentencers to focus either only on harmfulness or only on wrongfulness. Again, sentences more closely reflected wrongfulness ratings, and participants were more contemptuous of the harmfulness-based proposal. We also consider the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for sentencing laws and policy.     

Does Gender Modify the Effects of Race–ethnicity on Criminal Sanctioning? Sentences for Male and Female White, Black, and Hispanic Defendants

Using data from large urban courts for the years 1990–1996 and drawing from the “focal concerns” framework on case-process decision making, we examine the main and interactive effects of gender and race–ethnicity on sentence outcomes. The main focus of the present study is whether the effects of race–ethnicity (and gender) on sentence outcomes are similar or different across gender (and racial–ethnic) groups. Consistent with the findings of prior research, we find that female defendants receive more lenient sentences than male defendants and that black and Hispanic defendants receive less favorable treatment than white defendants. However, these main effects are strongly dependent on whether the sample is partitioned by gender or race–ethnicity. We find that race–ethnicity influences male but not female sentences. Conversely, gender strongly influences sentencing across all racial–ethnic groups. These findings are at odds with the traditional view that leniency in court sanctioning typically by-passes “women of color.” Instead, it appears that black and Hispanic female defendants actually benefit more from their “female” status than would be expected all else equal.

实用主义审判:一种结果导向的判决理论——读麦考密克《法律推理与法律理论》

与强调“依法裁判”的严格适法模式不同的是,英美法学理论推崇一种强调“后果考量”的实用主义审判哲学,即法官以判决可能导致的结果为依据而非绝时按照制定法规则决定裁判的内容。这种司法哲学由于违背了立法和司法的分权关系等理论而引起了很多严厉的理论批判。但是不容否认的是,实用主义审判哲学在各国司法实践中都实际地存在着,对于过于压制法官裁量权限的大陆法系国家而言,如果控制得当,实用主义司法甚至能起到诸多有益的功能,并可以借其消解严格适法模式带来的某些僵化之处。     

Response to Tudor: Remorse-based Sentence Reductions in Theory and Practice

Steven Tudor defends the mitigation of criminal sentences in cases in which offenders are genuinely remorseful for their crimes. More than this, he takes the principle that such remorse-based sentence reductions are appropriate to be a ‘well-settled legal principle’—so well settled, in fact, that ‘it is among those deep-seated commitments which can serve to test general theories as much as they are tested by them’. However, his account of why remorse should reduce punishment is strongly philosophical in character. He sets to one side the many practical difficulties in implementing such reductions in the real world of criminal justice institutions so that he can focus on the question of whether a plausible account of sentencing can show that remorse should mitigate punishment. I contend that Tudor’s defense of such reductions is unpersuasive in certain respects. Yet even if it can be made more persuasive, I argue that the conditions that would have to be satisfied for remorse-based sentence reductions to be justifiably implemented are so many and various that they would likely exceed our abilities to responsibly grant them in real world legal contexts. I therefore claim that Tudor has failed to provide a defense of the ‘remorse principle’ that serves to explain or justify existing legal practices.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF POLITICALLY POPULAR SENTENCING POLICY: THE HOMICIDE PROMOTING EFFECTS OF “THREE STRIKES” IN U.S. CITIES (1980–1999)*

Research Summary: Using panel data from 188 large cities during 1980–1999, we examined the possible homicide promoting effects of “three‐strikes” laws. Results indicated that cities in states with three‐strikes laws experienced short‐term increases in homicide rates of 13% to 14% and long‐term increases of 16% to 24% compared with cities in states without the laws. Policy Implications: Our results emphasize the fact that rarely are the possible unintended negative consequences of policy directives considered and point to the need for policy makers to consider both intended and unintended consequences of policy directives before the directives are codified.     

Sentencing Transparency in the Information Age

How unrestricted or restricted should judges be when deciding a sentence? To what extent should sentences be predetermined, or to what extent should judges be left with the right to decide a sentence in each individual case? Some legal systems, most notably in the United States, have chosen sentencing guidelines to control judicial discretion. However, another approach has been to use computer technology in the form of so‐called sentencing information systems (SIS). This article examines these developments and what possible influence they have had and could have in the Scandinavian, particularly in the Norwegian, context. Penal institutions today are adjusting to the demands of the information society. Does and could the fact that we are living in an increasingly technologically mediated world influence judicial decision‐making? The article argues that the use of technology is not simply a question of technological change, but is first and foremost a social and political phenomenon, related to the relations of trust in a society.     

中国法院的量刑程序改革

由最高法院推进的量刑程序改革目前正在全国部分法院进行试点。试点方案遵循依法、合理性与可操作性兼顾、公正与效率兼顾等原则,根据不同类型案件的特点,尝试采用不同的方法将量刑纳入法庭审理程序,以保障量刑活动的相对独立性。当前,我国的量刑程序改革面临着一些现实的问题和困难,同时,法院自身的特点决定了由其推动的量刑程序改革也存在一定的局限性。     

PATHWAYS TO SEX-BASED DIFFERENTIATION IN CRIMINAL COURT SENTENCING

Using a matched sampling method, this research examined the process of sex-based differentiation in sentencing outcomes for 194 men and 194 women, sentenced over a seven-year period in Christchurch, New Zealand. Consistent with past research, our results showed that judicial processing treated women more leniently than men. Path analyses revealed that judges were less likely to sentence women than men to imprisonment terms because of gendered information and decisions made earlier in the judicial process, such as criminal history, length of custodial remands, and pre-sentence recommendations by probation officers. In contrast, judges exercised considerable leniency towards women (compared with men) in setting the length of prison terms, even after statistically controlling for all sex-differentiated factors such as criminal history. Explanations and implications are discussed.     

No Evidence of Specific Deterrence under Penal Moderation: Imprisonment and Recidivism in Finland

International literature on prison effects on recidivism tends to find little evidence of specific deterrence. If anything, imprisonment seems more likely to increase than decrease rates of offending. The present study adds to this literature by examining imprisonment and recidivism in Finland, a nation characterized by an exceptionally moderate penal culture. It has been suggested that severe sanctions need to be imposed selectively in order for them to be effective. In this research, we estimated the impact of first imprisonment on recidivism in comparison with offenders sentenced to either suspended imprisonment or community service. Using data from government population registries, we controlled for a large number of legal and extra-legal confounding factors, including criminal history and socio-demographic characteristics. We found no evidence of reduced recidivism as a result of imprisonment. Instead, consistent with prior research, we find evidence of increased recidivism in certain offender categories. We conclude with a discussion of policy implications.     

The Silence of the Lambdas: Deterring Incapacitation Research

This essay provides an economist’s perspective on criminological research into incapacitation effects on crime. Our central argument is that criminologists would do well to substantially scale back the enterprise of trying to estimate the various behavioral parameters central to a micro-level approach to measuring incapacitation effects, including the annual rate of offending outside of prison (λ) and the lengths of criminal careers. One problem with this line of research is practical: for example, mean estimates of self-reported criminal activity by incarcerated prisoners are quite sensitive to reports by the most criminally active offenders. But the larger concern is conceptual—the incapacitation effects from a given change in sentencing policy may be undermined by the possibility of replacement effects, and at the same time omit other benefits that may arise from deterrent effects on crime. A more promising approach is to identify plausibly exogenous changes in sentencing policy in order to estimate the net impact on crime from the combined effects of incapacitation, deterrence and replacement.