量刑与刑的量化——兼论"电脑量刑"

量刑问题长期以来被学术及司法界所忽略.理论上,我国刑事法没有对量刑问题做细致的规定,而实践中,法院将量刑问题并入定罪的审理程序中一并考量,加上各地法院作法各异,造成量刑不透明和巨大的差异性.有人主张为了统一量刑采用电脑软件程式化量刑诸因素.本文提出量刑并非刑的量化,不应该仅仅以如何具体化刑期为中心.量刑实际反映社会对犯罪人最终评价的动态过程,理应考虑更多因素,将量刑从定罪程序中独立出来.     

酌定量刑、量化量刑与量刑双轨制——美国量刑改革的发展演变与新型量刑模式的确立

19 世纪以来,美国量刑改革经历了酌定量刑、量化量刑以及混和量刑三种不同模式。酌 定量刑时代推崇康复思想与矫正刑,司法自由裁量权几乎不受节制。量化量刑时代重在消除量刑偏差与实现量刑均衡,通过设置形式化、量化的规则和标准指导量刑,极大地约束了司法自由裁量权。双轨制量刑模式特点是法律的形式规制与法官的直觉感悟并重,确定量刑与不确定量刑混融。与量刑双轨制相对应,美国在量刑委员会的功能与定位、量刑指南的简化以及量刑监督等方面进行了改革和完善。     

论量刑因果关系的司法证明-刑事一体化的视角

量刑因果关系是刑法因果关系中的一个重要方面。在刑事法治中,量刑应当同定罪一样受到同等的重视。本文从量刑因果关系的刑事整体性研究入手,从刑法和刑诉法的角度对其进行审视与判断。在微观正义论和司法复杂性的原理和要求下,量刑因果关系的证明要素被分为说明性的证明要素和假设性的证明要素。这两种证明要素在具体的证明路径和过程要求中存在差别。量刑因果关系的证明主体存在多样化特征。量刑因果关系的证明责任在证明标准的特殊背景下,更加注重检察官与被告人的不同角色要求。     

论受贿罪的定罪与量刑

本文立足于司法实践中对于受贿罪定罪量刑的需要,结合我国修订后的刑法施行一年多来在适用中出现的疑难问题和实际案例,对于受贿罪定罪与量刑的司法实务问题进行了研究。其主要内容包括受贿罪罪与非罪的界限问题;以及对于立法规定的四个量刑档次如何正确地适用刑罚的问题     

论量刑程序独立的可行性与必要性

量刑是刑事审判的中心任务之一,定罪是为其服务的,两者都是刑事审判中的两大基本活动,具有同等重要的地位。长期以来,我国在"重定罪,轻量刑"思想影响下,忽视量刑问题。也就是说,我们对量刑问题的关注仅集中于实体法领域,没有将其纳入程序法的轨道。司法公正没有一个良好的程序制约,没有程序保障各类诉讼主体的有效参与,量刑只会使自由裁量权滥用的可能性加大,正是我国量刑实践的窘境和程序正义的理念深入,促使我对量刑程序独立的可行性与必要性的探究,以求循序渐进,探索适合我国的相对独立量刑程序。     

电脑量刑探析——论电脑量刑在量刑建议中的作用

与传统的依靠经验估堆式量刑方法相比较,电脑量刑有着其不可替代的优势,但又由于成文法固有的局限性也决定了电脑量刑必然有其自身难以克服的弊端。如何克服电脑量刑的机械化、单一化弊端,发挥其全面、快捷的优势是我们在提出具体量刑建议时需要思考的问题。电脑量刑在量刑建议中的作用在于提示公诉人全面考虑可能影响量刑的每一个细节,并通过对量刑细节的取舍,提出具体的、合理的刑期。本文指出通过辩证的分析电脑量刑在司法实践中的作用,我们不难看出,电脑量刑相对于人脑而言,永远只能居于辅助地位。     

论定罪量刑的社会学模式

现行刑事立法赋予法官享有一定的定罪量刑自由裁量权,该自由裁量权受诸多案件社会结构因素影响,案件社会结构因素影响定罪量刑的过程及其表现出的样式就是定罪量刑社会学模式。定罪量刑的社会学模式以案件社会学理论为参照,并基本被实证研究所证实。由于同性质的具体案件的社会结构不同或同一案件在不同诉讼阶段的社会结构不同,法官受其影响程度也不同,定罪量刑不公正现象由此而生。实现公正定罪量刑的关键在于避免定罪量刑社会学模式发生作用。     

恢复性司法视野下赔偿与量刑关系的重构

"赔偿从轻"是普遍的司法实践,但其因仅仅关注经济赔偿、脱离刑事和解的大框架而被诟病为"花钱买刑"。以恢复性司法为视角,赔偿与量刑的关系需要重构。赔偿从轻原则应当尽量创造犯罪人与被害人面对面接触的机会、应当以犯罪人充分认识到自己行为的后果为前提、应当以修复犯罪人、被害人与社区之间破损的关系为内涵,司法机关同时应关注对被害人心理健康的修复。     

刑事量刑自由裁量权及其规范

一、对刑事量刑自由裁量权的理性认识所谓刑事量刑自由裁量权,主要是指在正确认定犯罪的基础上,法官在刑法法定刑刑种及其幅度内,综合估量并确定宣告刑的一种裁判决断权,其实质是法官在法定刑幅度范围内,对犯罪人分配刑罚,酌定刑种及其轻重的一种权力。但是,言及刑事量刑自由裁量权的规范,有必要先从理论上对之有个清醒、正确的认识。     

论刑事定罪程序与量刑程序的分离

定罪程序与量刑程序的分离对解决我国刑事审判上的量刑失衡具有重要意义。进行量刑程序改革,构建独立的量刑程序,是一个重大的课题,本文对此提出了一些设想。     

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.     

Sentencing Guidelines and focal concerns: The effect of sentencing policy as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions

Contemporary research on criminal sentencing has analyzed sentencing under numerous sentencing policies, yet the effect of sentencing policy on outcomes and disparity is not known. A variety of sentencing guidelines systems, one of the more common sentencing policies, exists throughout the country. In addition, recent Supreme Court decisions regarding sentencing guidelines are likely to produce alterations to several state sentencing policies over the next few years. Using data from the state of Florida, the current study examines the effects of policy transformation on sentencing disparity within the focal concerns of sentencing perspective. The authors view sentencing guidelines as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions that influence other key variables. The results indicate that sentencing policy transformation has an important effect on both sentencing decisions and on the factors that shape those decisions. The findings suggest that future sentencing research and theoretical development would benefit from incorporating measures of policy differences in its analyses.     

Extralegal factors and the sentencing of organizational defendants: An examination of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were developed to provide uniform and standardized punishments for eliminating sentence disparities based on legally irrelevant factors. While research at the individual level showed that extralegal factors continued to affect sentence outcomes, no such research determined if these factors influenced sentencing of organizational offenders. This article extends the unit of analysis beyond the individual and toward organizational offenders to determine if total fine amounts are affected by extralegal organizational characteristics. Relying on post-1991 organizational defendant's data, the findings indicated both legal and extralegal factors significantly affected fine outcomes for organizational offenders. As expected, several legal factors significantly affected fine outcomes. At least two extralegal variables, economically solvent and closely held organizations, however, exerted significant effects in predicting the total fine amount imposed. Similar to research at the individual level, this study indicated that extralegal or legally irrelevant factors had some level of impact upon sentencing under the guidelines.     

Sentencing in a free society: The failure of the President's Crime Commission to influence sentencing policy

The President's Crime Commission (1965–1967) made recommendations in corrections favoring the then leading ideas of rehabilitation and indeterminacy, shortly before a radical reappraisal led to the eclipse of the rehabilitative model in favor of “just deserts.” In coming to its conclusions, the Commission overlooked the potential growth of prison populations, the development of prisoners' rights, and research that pointed to the failure of rehabilitation. The inability of the Commission to anticipate this great change was due in part to the dynamics of and time pressures on a Presidential commission. The change was precipitated by a social and intellectual crisis analogous to “scientific paradigm” revolutions described by Thomas Kuhn (1970). The crisis that led to a change in thinking about punishment was part of the larger crisis of the political legitimacy of liberalism.     

量刑的价值判断与公正量刑的途径

量刑是事实判断与价值判断的有机统一。量刑的事实判断以犯罪的主客观事实为基础,量刑的价值判断体现国家和社会惩罚与预防犯罪的特殊需要。《刑法》第61条规定的是量刑的事实根据与法律根据,在价值判断上有所缺漏。量刑的价值判断与规范判断并不相同。影响量刑的非规范性价值评价因素主要包括:情势变迁、文化背景、价值观念以及犯罪人的家庭、生活状况等。公正量刑的途径在于:坚持事实判断与价值判断相结合;适时调整量刑的依据和标准;赋予法官适度的自由裁量权;建立和完善相关的程序机制。     

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.