英美法系国家量刑指南制度的比较研究

量刑指南是指导法官裁量刑罚的准则.为了防止量刑偏差和量刑失衡问题,限制法官的自由裁量权,英美法系国家普遍制定了明确的量刑指南.其中,美国量刑指南制度是中国刑法理论研究较多的一个问题.实际上,在英美法系领域,产生了三种不同模式的量刑指南制度:美国数量化量刑指南、英国论理式量刑指南和澳大利亚信息化量刑指南.相比较而言,英国量刑指南制度对我国量刑制度的改革更具参考和借鉴意义.     

Sentencing Councils and Victims

This article explores the place victims have, and should have, in bodies that formulate sentencing guidelines, with particular reference to sentencing guidelines in England and Wales and the Sentencing Council's obligation under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to have regard to ‘the impact of sentencing decisions on victims of offences’ when devising guidelines. The issues are situated in political and penological contexts; the place of victims in sentencing commissions or advisory bodies in the USA, England and Australia is analysed and the meaning and significance of the Sentencing Council's obligation towards victims is considered, relating the specific obligation to broader issues concerning the place of victims within bodies that formulate sentencing guidelines. While incorporating victims within sentencing commissions might undermine commissions’ aims, it can play an important role in helping to boost public confidence in criminal justice, a touchstone for all western governments’ criminal justice policies.     

Structural contradictions and the United States Sentencing Commission

This research is a case study of criminal justice policy formation involving the development of federal sentencing guidelines for business organizations by the United States Sentencing Commission. It describes the decision-making process of the Commission and the influence of other groups and individuals on the process, and recounts their actions within the framework of structural contradictions theory. In the case of the federal sentencing guidelines, it is demonstrated that representatives of business opposed any legislation that was meant to limit the power of corporations or sanction the actions of their representatives, and therefore placed pressure on members of the Commission to eliminate or minimize such sanctions. The study confirms that the state, in an effort to foster the continued capital accumulation necessary for a healthy economy, acknowledged capitalist provisos and at least partially submitted to them during the development of the guidelines. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Attitudes toward sentencing guidelines and simulated sentencing among Missouri circuit court judges

This study examines attitudes toward sentencing guidelines and simulated sentencing practices among Missouri circuit court judges. In addition, the study investigates the efficacy of sentencing workshops by comparing judges who attended or did not attend workshops. All Missouri circuit court judges were mailed surveys and 97 judges responded. Results indicated that judges generally felt positive toward Missouri’s voluntary sentencing guidelines, but often failed to refer to the guidelines when sentencing sample cases. Attendance at a sentencing workshop was not associated with attitudes about Missouri sentencing guidelines or sentencing in simulated cases. Sentencing in simulated cases varied by nature of the crime and circuit type. Judges from metropolitan areas tended to sentence more leniently than judges from rural areas. In their written comments, many judges expressed fear about the possibility of mandatory guidelines. Results suggest that there is ambivalence among Missouri judges over the acceptance and use of sentencing guidelines.     

Rejoinder to Professor Ruback's article: Warranted and Unwarranted Complexity in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Professor Barry Ruback critiques the U.S. sentencing guidelines for their complexity, their lack of articulated purpose, and their unreliability. In a brief rejoinder to the complexity argument, this article points out that the complexity of previous sentencing practices helped drive the complexity of the guidelines the federal Sentencing Commission developed. Further, it notes that while the commission failed to articulate a philosophical purpose to the guidelines, the commission did develop guidelines that are a modified just desert model. Finally, the complexity of the guidelines does increase the risk of miscalculation and thus unreliability compared to simpler guidelines, but this discussion shows that a fairer benchmark is to past sentencing practices.     

MODEL MISSPECIFICATION: WHY AGGREGATION OF OFFENSES IN FEDERAL SENTENCING EQUATIONS IS PROBLEMATIC

This paper addresses two concerns that arise from Steffensmeier and Demuth (2001) analysis of federal sentencing and their misrepresentation of my analyses of sentence severity (Albonetti, 1997). My primary concern is to alert researchers to the importance of controlling for the guidelines offense that drives the sentencing process under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. My second concern is to correct Steffensmeier and Demuth's (2001) errors in interpretation of my earlier findings of the effect of guidelines offense severity on length of imprisonment.     

林诉亚利桑那州案与美国的死刑陪审团制度

林诉亚利桑那州案是美国死刑量刑制度中一个具有里程碑意义的重要判例,自该案之后,美国联邦最高法院确立了陪审团在量刑中的无可替代的法律地位,即量刑中加重情节必须由陪审团而不是法官加以认定。该案的背景情况以及法律争议在美国死刑程序中极具代表性,对法官独立量刑州以及混合程序州均产生了重大影响,立法机构也作出了积极的回应,其深远的影响将极大地改变美国死刑制度的未来发展。     

区分加重构成与量刑规则——罪量加重构成概念之提倡

法定刑升格条件确有区分加重构成与量刑规则的必要。不具备违法推定机能、不是故意认识内容的首要分子、作为报酬的违法所得等升格条件是典型的量刑规则;具备犯罪个别化、违法性推定与故意规制三大机能的时间地点、行为方式、加重结果等升格条件是典型的(罪体)加重构成要素;而多次、数额巨大等升格条件,仅表征违法程度、不体现行为类型变异,虽是故意的认识内容,却无法发挥犯罪个别化机能,既非典型的加重构成要素,也非典型的量刑规则,应属于罪量加重构成要素。罪量加重构成有行为规模类与结果程度类之分,结果程度类罪量加重构成是基于基本犯结果的危险性而加重刑罚的,当基本犯未遂时,即丧失加重之依据,不能论以加重犯的未遂犯。情节严重作为升格条件,则应当根据具体化的情节事实,依据上述标准判断各具体事项的归属。     

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines: A Structure for Change

Minnesota's sentencing reform took place many years ago but its evolution continues. It is not possible for any sentencing system to remain static in the highly political and emotionally charged arena of crime. Goals and principles that were considered firmly established when the Sentencing Guidelines first went into effect have been reordered and expanded, practitioners have cut through the hard edges of the policies and softened their impact, and specific sentencing policies have moved in the direction of harsher penalties for violent and career criminals and drug dealers. While political and practical forces continue to evolve the sentencing guidelines policy, it is the structure itself that provides the essential rational framework for decision making. This article examines some of the forces of change in Minnesota and illustrates how the structure of sentencing guidelines, nevertheless, has managed to retain a rational sentencing policy.     

Warranted and Unwarranted Complexity in the U.S. Sentencing Guideline

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are highly complex because of both initial policy decisions and subsequent pressures from Congress and appellate courts. The two initial policy decisions that were largely responsible for this complexity were (a) basing guidelines on "relevant conduct" rather than on the offense of conviction and (b) specifying in detail the number and precise sentencing value of aggravating and mitigating factors. Given this initial bias toward specificity, it was inevitable that the complexity in the guidelines would become worse as Congress pressed for further distinctions and the Sentencing Commission responded to those statutory actions. The complexity of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines has detrimental effects on both the perceived and actual fairness of the laws. Although statistical analyses indicate that the most complex guidelines (as indexed by the length of each guideline, the length of application notes for each guideline, and the number of amendments to each guideline) are also those that are most frequently used, there is also evidence that at least some of the complexity in the guidelines (the number of specific offense characteristics in each guideline and the number of cross references) is unwarranted.     

Just punishments: Guideline sentences and normative consensus

The federal sentencing guidelines prescribe ranges of sentences to be given to persons convicted of felonies in the federal criminal courts. The U.S. Sentencing Commission wrote the guidelines attempting to make sentences conform to community views of appropriate punishments, along with several other criteria. Employing data from a 1994 national sample of adult Americans, designed as a factorial survey, the degree of correspondence is shown between guidelines sentences and those desired by the American public. Although at the individual level only a modest degree of concordance was found, the central tendencies of public opinion (median sentences) were found to correspond quite closely to the guidelines sentences. The major points of disagreement centered around drug trafficking crimes: the guidelines prescribed very long sentences for those crimes and distinguished sharply among trafficking in heroin, powder cocaine, and crack, whereas median sentences desired by the public were much lower and did not distinguish sharply among trafficking in those drugs. We interpret the findings as indicating that the guidelines sentences conform reasonably closely to American normative consensus concerning the sentencing of federal felons.The research reported in this article was commissioned by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily endorsed by the Commission. Full expositions of the findings from the national survey used are given by Rossi and Berk (1995, 1997).     

Have Federal Sentencing Guidelines Reduced Severity? An Examination of One Circuit

Congress intended to make the sentencing process less discretionary and more equitable for similarly situated defendants when it passed the U.S. Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Sentencing guidelines were devised to promote these changes. After more than a decade of implementation, however, little is known about the impact of the new policy. This paper examines sentences given between 1993 and 1994 in one federal circuit in an effort to determine whether this policy instrument has achieved success. The theoretical model of a rational case processing system (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1980) is used to guide the interpretation of our findings and the recommendations we offer for improvements.     

Short‐ versus long‐term effects of Ohio's switch to more structured sentencing on extralegal disparities in prison sentences in an urban court*

Research Summary The impact of Ohio's presumptive guidelines on sentencing disparities was examined for one of the state's largest jurisdictions to determine whether the switch to more structured sentencing in 1996 had any enduring effects. Sentencing patterns were examined both before and shortly after the 1996 reform, as well as 9 years later. Findings revealed weaker race and marital status effects on imprisonment under guidelines versus stronger age effects, no changes in disparities based on a defendant's sex and means of support, and (virtually) no changes in the magnitude of legally relevant effects. Policy Implications Ohio's guidelines are more flexible relative to other guideline schemes, possibly accounting for the general stability in effects across regimes. Ohio has since transitioned to voluntary guidelines, which raised concerns that the change will yield higher levels of sentencing disparities. Findings suggest that the transition may coincide with no changes in legal effects, yet with greater disparities based on a defendant's race and marital status.     

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.     

Sentencing practices under the Arkansas sentencing guideline structure

In the last thirty years, research on differential sentencing practices became one of the dominant thrusts of academic interest in criminal justice studies. This was mainly because several reforms had been added to the various sentencing structures in the United States, one of which was the adoption of guideline based sentencing strategies. Although several studies were conducted regarding the impact of these guidelines, these were provided by a limited number of sources. For instance, the majority of this research was conducted on data collected by the United States Sentencing Commission and the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission. This study attempted to further the discussion on sentencing practices by examining data from a new source, the Arkansas Office of Courts. This study first examined the judge's decision to imprison and jail the defendant using logistic regression, and second, for those individuals incarcerated, OLS and negative binomial regression analyses were conducted to explore potential disparities in the length of prison and jail sentences. The results of this analysis in Arkansas illustrated striking comparisons to studies that were conducted on other guideline structures. The legally relevant variables were the greatest predictors of whether or not an offender was sentenced to prison. Extralegal variables, on the other hand, had negligible effects. Implications for policy are also discussed.     

体系性思考与量刑的规范化——以《量刑指导意见》及实践为分析对象

随着刑法理论的提升和实践经验的积累，我国刑事司法实务面临的突出问题不再是定罪问题而是量刑问题，解决问题的迫切性催生了《人民法院量刑指导意见（试行）》的出台。然而，问题思考的难题，需要通过体系性思考来解决。量刑规范化的较高境界应该是量刑结果的公正性与稳定性。通过体系性思考，实现犯罪论与刑罚论的逻辑衔接，明确刑罚理念、尊重量刑规律、量刑活动逻辑思维顺畅，量刑的公正性和稳定性才能够实现。     

THE IMPACT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES ON JAIL INCARCERATION IN MINNESOTA*

Although available empirical evidence suggests that Minnesota's Determinate Sentencing Law has had little effect on prison incarceration, it is still uncertain whether the sentencing guidelines affected jail use. A few recent studies imply that the guidelines have had a positive effect on jail incarceration rates. Accounts have pointed to preexisting trends, more severe sanctioning of repeat property offenders, and judicial concern with prison overcrowding as possible underlying causes of this observed increase. Using longitudinal data and an ARIMA study design, we investigate the validity of these competing explanations. Our findings show that the onset of the sentencing guidelines increased judicial use of the jail sanction beyond the effect of preexisting trends. In addition, the effect of mitigated dispositional departures from the no prison/prison outcome on jail use is salient only when prison population levels are high. This latter finding supports the thesis that judicial concern with prison overcrowding motivated judges to circumvent the guidelines in order to shift the burden of incarcerating offenders from the state to the local level. The policy implications of these results for determinate sentencing reform are discussed.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING DEPARTURES ACROSS MODES OF CONVICTION*

Recent analyses of guideline sentencing practices have demonstrated that sentences departing from guidelines serve as a significant locus of racial/ethnic and other extralegal disparity. Little is known, however, about the ways that different courtroom processes, such as modes of conviction, condition these effects. Using recent data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), I analyze the overall effects of race/ethnicity and other factors on judicial decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and then I reexamine these relationships according to four modes of conviction (non‐negotiated pleas, negotiated pleas, bench trials, and jury trials). I argue that the mode of conviction provides a useful indicator of the differential exercise of discretion by different courtroom actors in the sentencing process. As such, it is likely to condition the use of stereotypical patterned responses, thus moderating the effects of race/ethnicity and other relevant sentencing factors. Findings support this expectation, demonstrating that extralegal effects vary considerably across modes of conviction. These results raise important questions about the role of different courtroom actors in contributing to racial and ethnic disparities under sentencing guidelines.