量刑情节冲突问题研究

量刑情节冲突是司法实践中一个颇为棘手的问题,其具有多种具体表现形式,对于量刑情节不应当仅仅一次性笼统的看,而应该视不同情况分层次进行全面考量。对此问题,许多国家都有可供借鉴的成熟做法,然各国规定多不一致。我国学者对此也有研究,但鲜有深入阐述者。建立情节冲突适用规则的层次化体系,可从一般原则和具体适用规则两个方面的操作。     

论基本权利保障的技术方案——基于数学思维的分析框架

理论界与实务界在基本权利保障领域侧重于定性分析,但主观性过大、确定性不够的流弊在所难免,容易陷入仁者见仁智者见智的困境。为了增加基本权利保障的确定性与预测性,采用定量分析法,运用数学思维建构一个操作可行的技术方案势在必行。其主要思路为:首先,在传统三重审查基准的基础上,创立六重审查基准,亦即明显审查基准、合理审查基准、严格合理审查基准、中度审查基准、严格审查基准与绝对审查基准;其次,建立案件类型与违宪审查基准之间的联动机制。该机制的主要内容是厘清具体案件所包含的保障因子;根据保障因子的保障分值,计算出具体案件的保障量数;按照保障量数的大小,选择适用的审查基准,并据此对之进行宪法检验。     

SENTENCING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS IN THE NETHERLANDS: OFFENDER,VICTIM, AND SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES IN CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT*

Empirical investigations of criminal sentencing represent a vast research enterprise in criminology. However, this research has been restricted almost exclusively to U.S. contexts, and often it suffers from key data limitations. As such, an examination of more detailed international sentencing data provides an important opportunity to assess the generalizability of contemporary research and theorizing on criminal punishment in the United States. The current study investigates little-researched questions about the influence of prosecutorial sentencing recommendations, victim/offender relationships, and extralegal disparities in sentencing by analyzing unique data on the punishment of homicide offenders in the Netherlands. The results indicate that offender, victim, and situational offense characteristics all exert important independent effects at sentencing and that prosecutorial recommendations exert powerful influences over judicial sentences. The article concludes with a discussion of future directions for comparative sentencing research across international contexts.     

比例原则视域下的行政裁量基准制度

行政裁量基准的制定和实施虽然是行政机关主导的,是行政自制理论的体现,但仍需遵循立法者的授权本意以及接受法院对于自由裁量行政行为的司法审查。行政裁量基准的制定以及法院在对行政裁量性行政行为进行司法审查时,比例原则的作用不可或缺。     

对检察机关量刑建议制度之反思与重构

量刑建议权本质上属于公诉权的重要组成部分,而公诉权本质上是一种司法请求权,这种请求权不仅包括"求罪权",同时也应包括"求刑权"。由此可见,检察机关不仅有定罪建议权,同时也有量刑建议权。虽然各地检察机关进行了量刑建议制度方面的探索,但在司法实践中还存在种种弊端。应基于当前量刑建议权实施的现状对量刑建议制度进行重构,以期对具体的司法操作有所裨益。     

量刑程序主体初探

量刑程序诉讼行为的目的决定其主体除控辩审三方外，还应包含社会方。各主体在量刑程序中发挥不同的职能作用。为保证主体职能作用的充分发挥，应正确理解相关主体之间的关系，加强相应制度建设。保证量刑程序主体的主体性权利。     

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。     

“BACK-END SENTENCING” AND REIMPRISONMENT: INDIVIDUAL,ORGANIZATIONAL, AND COMMUNITY PREDICTORS OF PAROLE SANCTIONING DECISIONS*

An understudied contributor to the massive growth of American incarceration is an increase in the practice of reimprisoning parolees through parole board revocations—now referred to as “back-end sentencing.” To conduct the analyses outlined in this article, we use data from the California Parole Study to analyze the effects of three clusters of factors (parolees' characteristics, organizational pressures, and community conditions) on these sentences. Our analyses are informed by theories that have been used to explain “front-end” (court) sentences, which center on the focal concerns of social-control agents, labeling, and racial threat. Our results indicate that status characteristics—race/ethnicity and gender—affect the likelihood that criminal parole violators are reimprisoned. Moreover, certain “pivotal categories” of parolees—registered sex offenders and those who have committed “serious” or “violent” offenses—are much more likely to be returned to prison than others. Organizational pressure (prison crowding) also affects the likelihood of reimprisonment. Communities' political punitiveness affects the likelihood that technical violators are reimprisoned and that serious or violent offenders are reimprisoned for criminal violations. In this article, we use these findings to consider ways that mass incarceration is driven by both top-down policies as well as bottom-up organizational and community forces.     

Sinners and Saints: The Role of Social Standing Evidence in Capital Sentencing

The authors’ purpose was to examine how the social standing of victims and defendants impacted capital sentencing decision making. Participants were 305 death-qualified community members recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk workforce who acted as mock jurors in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. This experiment was a 3 Victim Impact Statement Social Standing (none, low, high) × 3 Execution Impact Evidence Social Standing (none, low, high) fully crossed, between-groups factorial design. Social standing of the victim did not directly or indirectly impact sentencing decisions, but the introduction of any form of execution impact evidence resulted in more positive evaluations of the defendant and fewer death sentences. These effects were moderated by pro-death penalty attitudes. Our findings have implications for how prosecutors and defense attorneys use character evidence to humanize victims and defendants.