被害人宽恕与量刑

传统的司法观念将追究犯罪单纯看作国家的职能，因此容易忽视被害人事后宽恕情节对量刑的影响。司法实践中虽然也有将被害人宽恕当作量刑情节的案例，但是却很少有人对此作出详细论述。从量刑的根据、被害人宽恕作为量刑情节的理论支撑和具备的优秀实践价值出发，全面列举了被害人宽恕应该成为一个酌定的量刑情节的理由。     

被害人参与量刑程序：现状、困境与展望

被害人参与量刑程序是量刑程序改革的重要组成部分,对于化解社会矛盾、促进社会和谐具有重要意义。从当前试行效果看,这一制度设计在实践中遇到一些困境。2012年修改后的刑事诉讼法为被害人参与量刑程序、发表量刑意见预留了足够空间。未来应区分＂被害人影响陈述＂与被害人的量刑意见,处理好被害人的量刑意见与检察机关的量刑建议的关系,进一步完善具体的制度设计。     

Sentencing

While there is nearly unanimous agreement among social scientists that the defendant's prior record is important in explaining the sentence imposed on the defendant, there is little agreement on the "best" or most appropriate measure of prior record to use in examining sentence disparity. This study provides an assessment of the utility of 11 commonly used measures of prior record. We find that the various measures are not interrelated highly and thus necessarily are not interchangeable. We also find that the measures of prior record affect sentence severity differently and that the relationships between these measures and sentence severity varies for black and white defendants.     

量刑轻缓化趋势与非监禁刑

一、序言苏格兰的刑法与英格兰和威尔士有显著差异。在英格兰和威尔士 ,刑法基本上是一种以制定法规定犯罪的制度 ,该制度对每一种犯罪都有明确规定的刑罚 ,通常表现为法定最高刑。而在苏格兰 ,大多数刑事犯罪的法律渊源是普通法 ,也就是那些来源于 1 70 7年以前苏格兰议会所颁布的古老法案 ;或者来源于著者们所描述的无可追忆的惯例 ;或者来源于法庭在适用法律过程中对法律所作的发展的法律。一般而言 ,苏格兰法律中的法定犯罪是指那些规定于英联邦议会颁布并适用于整个英联邦国家的制定法中的犯罪—例如道路交通、毒品和攻击性武器等领域…     

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。     

Sentencing Disparity and Sentencing Guidelines: the Case of China

Asian Journal of Criminology - This study investigates sentencing disparity under the sentencing guidelines in China. Drawing upon the firsthand data of 509 criminal cases from a county-level court...     

量刑与定罪互动论:为了量刑公正可变换罪名

现行刑法理论中定罪与量刑的关系被扭曲了,刑法理论把准确定罪置于至高无上的地位,司法机关把大量精力耗费于准确判断罪名,定罪决定量刑、量刑不可能影响罪名成为刑法公理。但是,判断罪名意义上的定罪,并非刑法的目的;对被告人和社会最有意义的是量刑,判断罪名只是为公正量刑服务的;因此,如果常规判断的罪名会使量刑失当,就可以为了公正量刑而适度变换罪名。     

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。     

Courtroom Context and Sentencing

This study provides an evaluation of the major policy shift in sentencing practices over the past half-century – namely the shift from indeterminate to determinant sentencing policies and the use of sentencing guidelines. The theoretical literature on courtroom organization and focal concerns informs this evaluation of determinate sentencing practices in Florida. Drawing from prior theoretical and empirical research, hierarchical linear and generalized linear models are estimated to assess courtroom effects on individual level sentencing outcomes. The findings document that location matters when sentenced in Florida. Specifically, the likelihood of being sentenced to prison and the length of sentence varies across counties, even after controlling for individual case and offender characteristics and a variety of contextual characteristics. Additionally, the influence of legal and extra-legal factors on prison in/out and sentence length decisions varies significantly across counties. Several court characteristics, including court size, caseload pressure and trial rate assert direct influence on a county’s likelihood of prison in/out and mean sentence length decisions.

     

Beyond Sentencing Guidelines: Additional Functions for Intermediate Sentencing Entities

The first part of this two-part special issue on structured sentencing in the U.S. focused on individual jurisdictions and the relationship of five types of sentencing reforms to judicial discretion and to the political and legal forces that originated, maintained, altered or sometimes ended the reform. This issue moves the focus to a comparative one, looking across a variety of different jurisdictions to report common threads of advantage and disadvantage to the various structured sentencing systems. Originating in political and legal arenas, structured sentencing affects not only the sentencing process, but can itself affect the political process and the distribution of sanctioning discretion among the different branches of government.