The Time Penalty: Examining the Relationship Between Time to Conviction and Trial vs. Plea Disparities in Sentencing

Although studies of sentencing routinely find that defendants who plead guilty receive relatively lenient sentences compared with similarly situated defendants convicted by trial, we have yet to fully understand the role of “mode of conviction” in the sentencing process. In particular, we know little about how the size of the disparity between guilty pleas and trial convictions may depend upon time in case processing, or the timing of pleas; that is, when during the process defendants plead guilty. This is a considerable issue, as “time” often is central to explanations given for plea-trial disparities. The current study examines this central, yet seldom empirically captured, dimension of the sentencing process. Using information gathered in an ancillary data collection effort operated under the supervision of the American Terrorism Study, we differentiate between the mode of conviction and time to conviction and explore the role of “time” in sentence severity, especially with regard to the plea-trial disparity. While consisting of defendants identified in connection with terrorism investigations, and sentenced in federal courts, our study takes advantages of a unique opportunity to isolate the effects of time from the mode of disposition and to explore time correlates of sentencing outcomes. In doing so, we raise important questions about the multiple ways in which time and mode of conviction may affect sentencing more generally and contribute to the larger theoretical discussions of how punishment decisions are made.     

On Restriction of Death Penalty Application Discretionary Circumstance of Sentencing

危害结果在很大程度上反映出行为社会危害性的大小,在我国死刑裁量中发挥了重要作用。危害结果在很多情况下是作为酌定量刑情节的形态存在的,其对于死刑的限制适用具有重要意义。充分发挥危害结果情节在限制死刑适用中的作用,应当力戒死刑适用“唯后果论”的倾向;物质性的危害结果不是特别严重的,可以不判处死刑立即执行;危害结果的发生系存在介入因素的场合,应当慎用死刑立即执行。     

刑事抗诉实证研究——以海淀区人民检察院五年来的刑事抗诉案件为视角

本文依托北京市海淀区人民检察院近五年来的抗诉实践,在比较借鉴国外部分国家刑事抗诉制度的基础上,对我国目前的刑事抗诉制度及实践中存在的问题进行梳理,进而提出了完善我国的刑事抗诉制度的合理化建议。     

中国量刑程序改革的回顾与前瞻

量刑规范化改革是中国近年来刑事司法领域重大的改革举措,而量刑程序改革是中国量刑规范化改革的重要方面。作为中国量刑程序改革重要阶段性成果的《关于规范量刑程序若干问题的意见(试行)》总结了我国量刑程序改革的经验,利于实现量刑的程序公正,但仍存在不足之处。中国量刑程序改革的未来路径是对现有的所谓"诉讼化的量刑程序"加以改造,建立适合中国司法生态环境的量刑听证程序,实现量刑程序的完全独立化和听证化。     

论量刑建议权的行使与强化刑事审判监督

量刑建议权是检察机关公诉权的重要组成部分,是检察机关公诉部门在公诉工作中行使公诉职能的特定方式,也是强化刑事审判监督、规范审判机关量刑活动的有力、有效途径。量刑建议制度的建立与完善,量刑建议权的正确、有效行使,不仅将促使审判机关量刑活动的规范化,一定程度上提高司法裁判的稳定性,而且也将促使检察机关自身在行使公诉职权时提高办案质量,在检、法的相互制约中实现司法公正。量刑建议制度的建立与量刑建议权的履行,为检察机关和审判机关提供了一个刑事审判中针对量刑活动博弈论辩的平台。     

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF GUIDELINES CIRCUMVENTION: THE CASE OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS*

Recent scholarship on criminal punishments increasingly highlights the importance of courtroom social contexts. Combining recent data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (FY1997–2000) with aggregate data on federal districts, the current study examines interdistrict variations in the application of downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Findings indicate that substantial variation exists in the probability of both prosecutor‐initiated substantial assistance departures and judge‐initiated downward departures. This variation is accounted for, in part, by organizational court contexts, such as caseload pressures, and by environmental considerations, such as the racial composition of the district. Additional evidence suggests that individual trial penalties and race disparities are conditioned by aggregate court contexts. Drawing on interviews with federal justice personnel, this article concludes with a discussion of future directions for research on federal guidelines departures. Part of the glory of the federal system…is that you've got this one big organization, but it can be molded to different needs…
‐ An assistant U.S. attorney ‐     

未成年人犯罪量刑建议实证分析

国际社会对未成年罪犯的非刑化、轻刑化、非监禁化处置已成为主流趋势。近年来,我国社会各界对未成年人犯罪加强司法保护的呼声逐渐高涨,日益影响着司法实践。量刑问题是刑法理论的缩图,量刑建议是检察机关行使公诉职能和监督职能的新的举措和重要方式,对实现刑罚个别化,保护未成年当事人合法权益具有重要的积极意义。实践中,检察机关对未成年人刑事案件作出量刑建议仍在积极探索和经验准备阶段。     

酌定量刑情节探究

酌定量刑是法律赋予法官的自由裁量权,目的是根据个案的情节,作出准确具体的裁量,在司法实践中发挥着重要的作用。但由于酌定量刑法律没有明确其概念和范围,法官在适用时带有很大的随意性,因而易引发争议。文章通过分析酌定量刑情节的功能,对实践中存在的问题提出了完善的对策。     

宪法诉讼中的审查基准

宪法诉讼中的审查基准,是指违宪审查机构在对相关法律进行审查、判定的时候,所秉持的价值评判准则.自1938年美国的"凯罗琳产品案"以来,"二元基准"逐渐被确立,并在建立宪法诉讼制度的国家产生了深远的影响."二元基准"确立的原因主要包括三个方面:首先,社会情势的发展变化内在地要求放宽对关涉经济之立法的审查;其次,基本权利的不同秉性内在地要求对不同性质的基本权利施加不同的审查;其三,维系代议民主政治和宪法裁判机构之正当性内在地要求对关涉精神自由和经济自由的立法施加不同的审查.