论量刑程序的独立性——一种以量刑控制为中心的程序理论

中国现行刑事审判制度确立了定罪与量刑一体化的程序模式,主流的诉讼理论也是以定罪控制为中心确立起来的。然而,法院的量刑依据与定罪依据有着明显的差异,在缺乏诉权制约的情况下,量刑裁决存在着滥用自由裁量权的可能性。只有将量刑与定罪在程序上分离开来,并使其具有基本的诉讼形态,公诉权才可以从单纯的定罪请求权发展出量刑建议权的内涵,被告人的量刑辩护才可以成为独立的辩护形态,被害人的量刑参与权才可以得到充分的保证,那种以量刑控制为中心的证据规则也才可以得到建立。为有效制约法院在量刑上的自由裁量权,确保量刑程序的公正性,量刑程序有必要从现行审判制度中独立出来。     

论量刑中的归因

长期以来,犯罪原因一直被我国刑事立法和刑法理论排除在量刑情节之外.笔者认为,犯罪原因对量刑有着重要影响,应该成为量刑情节.法官在量刑中寻找犯罪原因情节的过程是归因,量刑归因必需遵循一定的原则和方法.量刑归因偏差违反了罪刑均衡原则,必须克服.笔者认为,在刑事立法与刑事司法中必须考虑到归因.     

独立量刑程序的价值分析

定罪与量刑是我国刑事审判中的两个极为重要的问题,实现定罪的准确性与量刑的合理性是整个刑事审判活动最基本的要求。司法实践中,被告人罪名的认定与量刑轻重都是法官自由裁量权行使的结果,由于法律规定的量刑幅度宽泛,在量刑问题上受法官的自由裁量权的影响更大,相应被滥用的可能性也就更大,也就更迫切需要有效的约束机制。     

美国量刑理论中的关注焦点理论

关注焦点理论是美国刑事司法领域解释量刑差异的主流理论。该理论认为,法官和其他刑事司法系统的决策者在作出量刑决定时有三个关注焦点:罪犯的可谴责性、人身危险性,以及实践中的可操作性。由于法官在量刑时缺乏完整的信息,因此使用"感官速记"把对这三个焦点的关注转化为对性别、年龄、种族等表面信息的关注,导致"类案不同判"。对关注焦点的研究,在理论上有助于理解司法过程中量刑差异的产生原因,在实践中有助于解决量刑不规范的问题。通过介绍美国的关注焦点理论,以及这个理论框架下的实证研究和对关注焦点理论的评论,反思对我国量刑理论和实践的借鉴意义。     

Individual Conceptions of Justice and Their Potential for Explaining Proenvironmental Decision Making

In Germany, community-based climate-protective decisions were measured on micro up to macro levels, and the role justice appraisals play in decision-making was investigated in comparison to responsibility-related and self-centered motives. Results reveal that in the field of carbon dioxide emission, gaps between those who are gaining profits and those who have to suffer from negative side effects are recognized by the community on a national as well as an international level. For gaining behavioral impact, the perception of these gaps needs to be regarded under a moral perspective and considered unjust. These justice appraisals are shown to be stable predictors of climate-protective commitments, even when powerful responsibility-related variables were included in the regression analyses. Self-centered motives proved to be of minor importance.     

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...     

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。     

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。     

量刑思维规律下的量刑方法构建

量刑在本质上不是＂刑之量化＂,而是＂刑之裁量＂。这决定了量刑思维不只是形式逻辑思维或辩证逻辑思维,而是二者的有机统一。量刑方法作为量刑思维的表现手段,需遵循量刑思维的以上逻辑规律。传统的经验量刑法虽然是辩证逻辑思维的充分展现,但没有融入现代形式逻辑的现代科技手段;而所谓现代量刑方法虽然使用了现代科技手段,但又只是遵循现代形式逻辑规律,规避了辩证逻辑规律。刑法现代化下的量刑方法构建,应是基于量刑思维的逻辑规律,把传统经验量刑法与各所谓现代量刑方法进行整合,以形成定量与定性相结合的量刑方法。     

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…     

量刑建议制度全面推行的障碍及其破解

我国自上世纪末在国内部分地区试行量刑建议制度以来,取得了一系列积极成果,但若全面推行则仍面临"观念"、"理论"及"实践"三个层面的障碍.观念层面的障碍表现为社会公众乃至部分司法实务界人士对检察机关行使量刑建议权不理解,认为是检察机关在"抢权",量刑建议与实际处刑不一致则是检察机关"办错案";理论层面的障碍表现为难以厘清量刑建议权与审判独立及司法公正的理论架构;实践层面的障碍对外表现为检察机关行使量刑建议权的案件类型不明确,对内表现为检察机关社会压力增大且量刑建议经验缺乏以及量刑建议权的行使缺乏规制.分析并破解这三个层面的障碍,对在我国全面推行置刑建议制度具有重要意义.     

Sentencing Commissions as Centers for Policy Analysis and Research: Illustrations from the Budget Process

Sentencing commissions have become centers for policy analysis and research, studying the problems of prison crowding and resource limits (Reitz 1997). However, more information is needed regarding how commissions perform this function. This paper focuses on the role of sentencing commissions as centers of policy analysis during state budget processes. Also discussed is an important stage for policy research, the evaluation of alternative policies by means of computer simulation, a modeling tool frequently employed by sentencing commissions. Following a discussion of computer simulation principles, several prominent simulation models used by sentencing commissions are reviewed. Finally, the activities of Virginia's sentencing commission demonstrate how commissions serve as policy research centers.     

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。     

量刑基准论

量刑基准的合理确定,是量刑公正的基础和关键。量刑基准客观地存在于经验型法官的潜意识之中。量刑基准包含基准事实和基准刑两方面。在确定量刑基准时,应该先确定量刑基准的基准事实,后寻找基准事实对应的基准刑。为调和各地具体情况的差异性与宏观上量刑的相对统一性之间的紧张关系,应当同时构建由最高人民法院确立个罪基准事实、由地方各级法院确定基准刑并逐级备案的量刑平衡机制。     

量刑程序改革语境中的量刑证据初探

在量刑程序改革的背景下，对量刑证据的研究显得尤为重要扣迫切。以证据为核心进行量刑裁判是量刑公正性和合理性的有效保障。量刑证据在证明对象、证明标准、证据能力规则等层面均表现出不同于定罪证据的特质。在死刑案件中，对量刑证据规则的设定以及量刑证据的判断和运用应该更加严格。     

Non-custodial Dispositions and the Politicsof Sentencing

In 2012, the Government of Victoria, Australia, introduced a new form of non-custodial disposition known as the “community correction order” (“CCO”). In 2014, the Victorian Court of Appeal was asked to provide guidance to sentencing courts so that CCOs could fulfil their potential as an alternative to imprisonment. The Court’s guideline judgment concluded that the advent of the CCO had the potential to transform sentencing in Victoria but that this would depend upon the community being properly informed about the capacity of a CCO to operate punitively, as well as to promote rehabilitation. This did not occur, however, and there was strident criticism of the judgment as authorising inadequate punishment of serious offences. Although sentencing courts have utilised the CCO appropriately in the light of the judgment, the Government recently legislated to restrict its availability.     

Lawlessness in the Federal Sentencing Process: A Test for Uniformity and Consistency in Sentence Outcomes

One of the important goals of the federal sentencing guidelines was to reduce inter‐judge disparity in sentencing. In this paper, we test the assumption that structuring discretion produced uniformity in federal sentencing and consistency in the process by which judges arrive at the appropriate sentence. We also examine whether background characteristics of judges affect the sentences they impose on similarly situated offenders. We used hierarchical linear modeling, nesting the offenders in the judges that sentenced them in order to examine the sentencing decisions of federal judges in three U.S. District Courts. While we found that significant variation between judges in sentencing is largely accounted for by our level 1 characteristics, we also found that judges arrive at decisions regarding the appropriate sentence in different ways, by attaching differential weights to several of the legally relevant case characteristics and legally irrelevant offender characteristics.     

论量刑精确制导

我国《刑法》第5条既是刑法的基本原则,也是量刑公正的一般标准,它要求量刑精确制导,最大限度地避免刑罚误差。实现量刑精确制导的根本出路是理论创新和方法创新,这主要表现在三个方面:(1)依法构建量刑标尺,将法定刑空间划分为200个刻度,把其中各种刑罚折算或者虚拟为有期徒刑的月数,明确1个刻度所体现的不同性质刑罚的度量,用以计算刑罚的轻重程度;(2)在正确定罪并找准法定刑的前提下,理性评价犯罪人具有的量刑情节,将其所反映的社会危害程度和人身危险程度用一定数值(积分)表示,借以计算行为人罪责的大小程度;(3)将量刑情节的轻重积分与量刑空间的轻重刻度按"1∶1"的标准相对应,前者在相应量刑空间中的读数,便是量刑公正的最佳适度。