量刑程序改革的模式选择

确立适当的量刑程序模式，使得定罪程序与量刑程序的关系得到合理的协调，这是量刑程序改革的首要课题。最高法院新近确立的改革方案，尽管在“认罪审理程序”中具有可行性，但在简易程序和普通程序中却很难得到适用，甚至可能面临较大的理论争议和现实风险。通过基层法院的改革探索，一种建立在检察官批量出庭基础上的“集中量刑模式”，逐渐在简易程序中出现；对于被告人不认罪的案件，一种新的“独立量刑模式”在司法实践中逐渐浮出水面；那种适用于“认罪审理程序”中的“交错量刑模式”，也存在着进一步改进和完善的空间。对于这些自生自发的改革经验，改革者应正视其存在的合理性，评估其试验的效果，从而使其在促进新制度的形成方面发挥更大的作用。     

论相对独立的量刑程序——中国量刑程序的理论解读

2010年10月1日<关于规范量刑程序若干问题的意见>开始在全国试行,这标志着一种相对独立的量刑程序在中国正式确立.按照这一量刑程序,检察机关可以提出量刑建议,当事人可以提出量刑意见,侦查机关和公诉机关有义务收集量刑证据,法律援助的适用范围得到扩大,改革者在简易程序、被告人认罪案件的普通程序以及被告人不认罪案件的普通程序中分别确立了各不相同的量刑审理程序.相对独立的量刑程序的确立,对于量刑裁判过程的公开化、透明化和适度对抗化固然有着积极的保障作用,但仍然有一系列的问题需要解决.     

论隔离式量刑程序改革——基于芜湖模式的分析

量刑程序改革过程中出现了相对独立的量刑程序和隔离式的量刑程序两种方案。在解决不认罪案件量刑程序问题上,隔离式量刑程序更加合理,也符合法律的规定。隔离式量刑程序适用于被告人不认罪的案件,在对被告人有罪与否的决定先作出后再启动,由控辩双方分别提出量刑证据并发表意见,最后进行量刑问题的总结陈词。在量刑程序改革中,其他应当解决的问题还包括检察官的量刑建议权、社会调查报告制度的建立以及量刑程序的证明过程等重点问题。     

“量刑规范化”解读

何谓"量刑规范化"是研究和探索量刑规范化问题的基础和前提,可理论上尚无明确或有价值之界定。基于对刑法现代化及量刑的实质和规律的考量,量刑规范化应是对"量刑",即把抽象的法律规则与具体的案件事实相结合并上升为理性与具体的过程的规范化。它表现为量刑统一化与量刑个别化的有机统一,是在尊重量刑实质和遵循量刑规律的前提下,通过设置和适用完备的程序制度,使量刑生产出公正有效及符合刑罚目的的量刑判决。     

认罪认罚案件中的量刑协商和量刑建议

量刑协商是我国认罪认罚从宽制度中无法回避的关键问题,认罪协商的过程围绕着量刑展开,而检察机关的量刑建议是该过程的核心.这种量刑建议不同于传统刑事诉讼中的量刑建议,是检察官的一种法定职责,并具有准终局性,从而对法院裁判形成刚性约束力.实证研究显示,认罪认罚案件中量刑协商的空间较小,量刑建议的精准性不足,检察机关量刑建议权...     

认罪认罚案件量刑建议对量刑类二审抗诉的约束力

在认罪认罚案件中,检察机关在一审法院根据量刑建议作出判决后又以量刑错误为由提出二审抗诉,这种量刑类二审抗诉具有显著的发生概率小但负面后果大的“肥尾风险”特征。化解该类风险的关键在于确认认罪认罚案件的量刑建议对量刑类二审抗诉具有约束力,同时明确例外情形。首先,认罪认罚从宽具有契约性,契约应当遵守原则要求量刑建议对量刑类二审抗诉具有约束力;其次,认罪认罚案件的量刑类二审抗诉具有救济功能,这种制度功能决定量刑类二审抗诉应受量刑建议的约束;最后,量刑建议的约束力问题内含众多冲突利益,利益平衡的合理性价值要求赋予量刑建议对量刑类二审抗诉约束力。但是,根据任何人不能从不当行为获利的基本原则,在被追诉人以不正当手段获得量刑建议、不履行认罪认罚契约义务时,量刑建议对量刑类二审抗诉不具有约束力。     

量刑方法和程序的合理性规制

量刑方法和程序的规范,不仅关系到被告人、被害人的合法权益能否得到有效保障,更关系到司法权威和司法公正能否得以实现。据此,本文从量刑不规范的原因、量刑方法的合理性探索、量刑程序的构建模式三个方面对于量刑体制的规范化这个问题加以探索,以期对我国量刑制度的改革有所裨益。     

论我国独立量刑程序的构建

我国将定罪和量刑程序糅合在一个统一的审判程序中,这样的制度设计导致量刑环节出现了诸多问题。通过比较借鉴两大法系的经验,提出构建符合我国国情的相对独立量刑程序的设想:庭审方面,在普通刑事案件中建立标准独立量刑程序,在被告人认罪案件中增设直接量刑程序,在简易程序中保留混合量刑程序;在证明责任方面,遵循"谁主张,谁举证"原则;在保障措施方面,扩大刑事简化程序的适用,增强刑事判决书关于量刑的说理性等。     

量刑控制的两种模式

近年来,我国司法机关启动了量刑控制模式的改革,包括程序性的量刑程序独立化改革和实体性的量刑规范化改革。量刑程序独立化改革已经被证明为缺陷明显的改革;而实体性的量刑控制模式很显然在我国更具备合理性。但是最高法颁发的《量刑指导意见》存在诸多问题,应当贯彻责任主义的原则予以完善。     

量刑规范化改革中律师的应对

量刑规范化改革是近几年来刑事审判工作的重点。我国刑法理论界对量刑问题进行了深入的理论研究,审判实践中进行了较为有益的改革和探索。目前已在全国法院开展量刑规范化试点工作,支撑此项改革的是最高人民法院发布的《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）》两个文件。律师作为刑事案件不可缺少的角色,要积极应对改革的新挑战,要全面领会最高法院两个试行文件精神和内容,总结整理刑法中涉及量刑情节的主要内容,细化所办案件的量刑内容,在量刑辩护过程中要针对量刑情节进行举证、质证和辩论,出具量刑建议书,积极参加听证程序、诉辩协商程序,履行释法责任,为量刑实体规范和量刑程序法律体系的建立和发展作出应有的贡献。     

The Time Penalty: Examining the Relationship Between Time to Conviction and Trial vs. Plea Disparities in Sentencing

Although studies of sentencing routinely find that defendants who plead guilty receive relatively lenient sentences compared with similarly situated defendants convicted by trial, we have yet to fully understand the role of “mode of conviction” in the sentencing process. In particular, we know little about how the size of the disparity between guilty pleas and trial convictions may depend upon time in case processing, or the timing of pleas; that is, when during the process defendants plead guilty. This is a considerable issue, as “time” often is central to explanations given for plea-trial disparities. The current study examines this central, yet seldom empirically captured, dimension of the sentencing process. Using information gathered in an ancillary data collection effort operated under the supervision of the American Terrorism Study, we differentiate between the mode of conviction and time to conviction and explore the role of “time” in sentence severity, especially with regard to the plea-trial disparity. While consisting of defendants identified in connection with terrorism investigations, and sentenced in federal courts, our study takes advantages of a unique opportunity to isolate the effects of time from the mode of disposition and to explore time correlates of sentencing outcomes. In doing so, we raise important questions about the multiple ways in which time and mode of conviction may affect sentencing more generally and contribute to the larger theoretical discussions of how punishment decisions are made.     

VARIATION IN TRIAL PENALTIES AMONG SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENSES*

We examine the differences in the sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by jury trial among defendants convicted of serious violent offenses. Drawing from a focal concerns and court communities perspective on court decision making, we develop several hypotheses about jury trial penalties for serious violent offenders, and how such penalties may vary by offense characteristics, defendant characteristics, and court contexts. Our hierarchical models using Pennsylvania sentencing data from 1997 to 2000 reveal that defendants are substantially penalized if they exercise their right to a jury trial and then lose. Furthermore, this jury trial penalty is not evenly assessed, but depends on the seriousness and type of offense, defendant criminal history, and court contextual characteristics such as caseload, court community size, local violent crime rates, and the size of local black populations.     

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。     

被告人认罪案件处理程序的比较法考察

英国、美国、法国、日本和俄罗斯等国都对被告人认罪案件规定了特殊的处理程序。这些国家的被告人认罪案件处理程序在具有简化诉讼程序、强调被告人认罪的自愿性等共同特征的同时,在适用的案件范围和被告人认罪的效果等方面存在一定的差异。我国于2003年确立了被告人认罪案件的处理程序。我国的被告人认罪案件处理程序在程序保障、适用范围等方面尚需要继续研究。     

Trial Penalties in Federal Sentencing: Extra‐Guidelines Factors and District Variation

The guarantee of the right to a jury trial lies at the heart of the principles that underlie the American criminal justice system's commitment to due process of law. We investigate the differential sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by trial in U.S. District Courts. We first investigate how much of any federal plea/trial sentencing differences are accounted for by substantial assistance to law enforcement, acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice, and other Guideline departures. Second, we investigate how such differences vary according to offense and defendant characteristics, as well as court caseloads and trial rates. We use federal sentencing data for fiscal years 2000–02, along with aggregate data on federal district court caseload features. We find that meaningful trial penalties exist after accounting for Guidelines‐based rationales for differentially sentencing those convicted by guilty plea versus trial. Higher district court caseload pressure is associated with greater trial penalties, while higher district trial rates are associated with lesser trial penalties. In addition, trial penalties are lower for those with more substantial criminal histories, and black men. Trial penalties proportionately increase, however, as Guideline minimum sentencing recommendations increase. We also supplement our analysis with interview and survey data from federal district court participants, which provide insights into the plea reward/trial penalty process, and also suggest important dimensions of federal court trial penalties that we cannot measure.     

Is Plea Bargaining in the “Shadow of the Trial” a Mirage?

It has been well established that a ??plea discount?? or ??trial penalty?? exists, such that defendants who plead guilty receive significant sentencing discounts relative to what they would receive if convicted at trial. Theorists argue that the exact value of this plea discount is determined by bargaining ??in the shadow of a trial,?? meaning that plea decision-making is premised on the perceived probable outcome of a trial. In trials, the strength of the evidence against defendants greatly impacts the probability of conviction. In the present study, we estimate the probability of conviction at the individual level for those who pled guilty. We find that, contrary to the shadow of the trial model, evidentiary factors either do not impact or negatively impact the probability of conviction, which stands in stark contrast to the impact evidence has at trials. These findings suggest that plea bargain decision-making may not occur in the shadow of the trial.     

ADVERSARIAL AND NONADVERSARIAL JUSTICE: A COMPARISON OF GUILTY PLEAS AND TRIALS*

Despite the frequency of guilty pleas, researchers disagree about the ability of plea bargaining to provide justice. Critics argue that plea bargaining deprives defendants of due process rights and procedural safeguards Proponents argue that guilty pleas save resources for cases that require trial and allow officials flexibility to tailor justice to individual defendants. This article explores these issues by examining the effect of defendant and case characteristics on sentence severity for 3,269 male robbery and burglary defendants who either pled guilty or were tried in six U.S. jurisdictions, three of which had recently attempted to eliminate or greatly reduce plea bargaining and three with few restrictions on plea bargaining. The results confirm some criticisms of plea bargaining, but refute others. More criminally experienced defendants and defendants who pled guilty at the earliest opportunity did not receive sentencing leniency. Moreover, to a large extent, the same variables predict sentence severity for guilty pleas and trials. In contrast, the results show that defendants convicted at trial received more severe sanctions than defendants who pled guilty, controlling for case severity, evidence, and offender characteristics The results also suggest that the jurisdictions which attempted to control plea bargaining through more centralized control of assistance succeeded in tightening the fit between case characteristics and sentences for both cases adjudicated by guilty plea and trial.     

Certainty of punishment and sentence mitigation in plea behavior

Mitigation of sentence severity has been cited as a primary factor underlying defendant decisions to plead guilty. It has been studied extensively and it has been assumed, but rarely examined, that few defendants plead guilty in the absence of significant benefits. This paper examines the relationship between sentence benefits and plea behavior. A crime-specific analysis reveals that some defendants frequently plead guilty in the relative absence of significant benefits; conversely, others plead not guilty even though significant benefits are available for guilty pleaders. Applying several decision theory constructs to justice system processing, the defendant's desire to reduce uncertainty is discussed and offered as a tentative explanation for the phenomenon of pleading guilty in the relative absence of significant benefits.     

Gender Disparities in Sentencing Departures: An Examination of U.S. Federal Courts

Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission, the present study examines the role of guideline departures in the sentencing of male and female defendants in federal courts. Findings indicate that female defendants continue to have lower odds of incarceration and to receive shorter sentence length terms, even after legal, extralegal, and contextual factors are controlled. The largest gender difference in the odds of incarceration was found for defendants who received substantial assistance departures, while male and female defendants in this same category were given the most similar sentence lengths. When departure status was examined as a dependent variable, it was found that female defendants were more likely to receive a sentencing departure. Finally, for both males and female defendants sentenced on multiple counts, those who went to trial and had prior criminal histories were less likely to receive sentencing departures. But defendants with higher guidelines sentences, those who had committed drug offenses, and those with more education were more likely to receive a sentencing departure.