新刑诉视野下公诉庭前准备工作研究

新刑诉的修改为公诉庭前准备工作增添了新的内容,检察机关面临着量刑建议、非法证据排除、庭前预备会议和证人、鉴定人、专家证人出庭的挑战,传统的公诉庭前准备工作不足以满足新刑诉法的要求。从我国的司法现状来看,重定罪、轻量刑的理念依然存在,非法取证现象虽然大为减少,但证据瑕疵现象较为普遍,庭前预备会议实施效果有待进一步显现,证人出庭难的现象依然存在。因此,公诉庭前准备工作必须做好重视量刑公诉准备,坚决排除非法证据,认真补正瑕疵证据,灵活应对庭前会议,积极建构证人出庭的配套机制等方面工作,以达到新刑诉法对公诉人出庭履职的要求。     

Why a jail or prison sentence is increasingly like a death sentence

Because of current conditions inside American jails and prisons, a sentence to a correctional facility routinely compromises the health, safety, and life of inmates. Four environmental factors can make a jail and prison sentence appear like a death sentence: poor health care, unsanitary living conditions, high levels of violence, and an increased number of people with chronic diseases living in close proximity. Thus, a de facto death penalty, the most controversial sanction of the criminal justice system, is the result for some inmates, and a misapplication of the criminal law is thus achieved. In order to present this argument, the author reviews research which increases the likelihood that a person will die behind bars.     

Prison sentences: last resort or the default sanction?

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the sentencing purposes for penal penalties, judges’ perceptions of sentencing purposes and prison sentences, and the effects of penal sanctions. We examine judges’ positions towards different penalties, with a focus on imprisonment, since their views on the different penalties are related to their sentencing decision-making. Understanding these views is then critical for several practical and political purposes, including bridging the gap between academic discourse and legal practice. We accessed judges’ views on penal sanctions through a questionnaire and an interview. Our sample is compounded by the judges of the criminal courts from the three major cities in Portugal. Despite the most recent criminological empirical knowledge, judges valued imprisonment as the most adequate sentence, both for different crimes and for different judicial purposes. This result is not consistent with viewing imprisonment as a ‘last resort’ solution. Indeed, we did not find this ‘last resort’ position in our data, and it is not apparent in the judicial statistics on imprisonment rates. Our data highlight the importance of increasing judges’ training on criminological and sociological issues as well as the importance of changing the influence of their personal beliefs regarding penal sanctions into research-based positions.     

论死刑案件中被害人过错的司法认定

被害人过错是多部刑事法律文件中规定的一个重要的量刑情节,但由于其并非法定量刑情节,作为酌定量刑情节缺乏统一的认定尺度,公检法对该情节的重视程度不够等原因导致司法实践中认定困难,且易导致量刑失衡。应将被害人过错作为法定量刑情节,在正确认定被害人过错存在的基础上,从其主观罪过、行为程度、侵害客体、对犯罪行为发生的原因力大小等角度予以细化考量影响被害人过错的因素,并通过数理化模型来分析被害人过错对犯罪行为发生的刺激作用,从而正确认定被害人过错对刑事责任的影响,体现罪责刑相适应的基本原则,贯彻宽严相济的刑事政策,充分发挥刑罚的一般预防功能,实现罪刑相当。     

基于适用缓刑降格量刑裁量现象的实证分析

如何规范量刑以减少量刑的失衡是刑法领域的一个世界性难题。有鉴于此,通过对刑事审判实践中的适用缓刑降格量刑裁量现象进行实证分析,提出解决方法:规制缓刑罪名、确立量刑分格刑、试行量刑偏离"说明制度,"力图对量刑制度的改革有所裨益。     

Direct and Indirect Effects of Case Complexity, Guilty Pleas, and Offender Characteristics on Sentencing for Offenders Convicted of a White-Collar Offense Prior to Sentencing Guidelines

Previous research on the punishment of offenders convicted of a white-collar offense estimated models that specify only direct effects of defendant characteristics, offense-related variables, and guilty pleas on sentence severity. Drawing from conflict or labeling theories, much of this research focused on the effects of offender's socioeconomic status on sentence outcomes. Findings from this research are inconsistent about the relationship between defendant characteristics and sentence severity. These studies overlook how differences in case complexity of white-collar offense and guilty pleas may intervene in the relationship between offender characteristics and sentence outcomes. This study seeks to contribute to an understanding of federal sentencing prior to the federal sentencing guidelines by testing a legal-bureaucratic theory of sentencing that hypothesizes an interplay between case complexity, guilty pleas and length of imprisonment. This interplay reflects the interface between the legal ramifications of pleading guilty, prosecutorial interests in efficiency and finality of case disposition in complex white-collar cases, and sentence severity. Using structural equation modeling, a four-equation model of sentencing that specifies case complexity and guilty pleas as intervening variables in the relationship between offender characteristics and length of imprisonment is estimated. Several findings are noteworthy. First, the hypothesized interplay between case complexity, guilty pleas, and sentence severity is supported. Second, the effect of offender's educational attainment on sentence severity is indirect via case complexity and guilty pleas. Third, offender's race and gender effect length of imprisonment both directly and indirectly through the intervening effect of case complexity and guilty pleas. These findings indicate the need to specify sentencing models that consider the direct and indirect effects of offender characteristics, offense characteristics, and guilty pleas on judicial discretion at sentencing.     

“量刑反制定罪论”不违反罪刑法定

量刑反制定罪论高举实质正义的大旗,强调量刑对定罪的反作用。然而认为该理论违反罪刑法定原则的批评比比皆是,目前学界主要存在滥用司法权、突破构成要件限制以及违反传统的罪刑关系这三个批评意见。抽象意义上的滥用司法权以及违反传统以罪定刑的观念无法形成有力的批评,但量刑反制定罪不能突破构成要件的限制,在此前提下的量刑对于定罪的反作用正是该理论的合理性所在,这种解释论意义上的量刑反制定罪并不违反罪刑法定原则。     

量刑比例初探——以江苏省姜堰市人民法院《规范量刑指导意见》为视角

引入量刑比例原则是尝试用数学的方法解决刑罚裁量的难题,探求刑事司法的正义,还给多数人公平。司法实践中,因为量刑幅度的存在,加之法官个体素质的差异,致使同罪异罚、量刑不当的现象大量存在。因此,制定一个统一的量刑规范,特别是设定具体的量刑基准和确立针对不同的量刑因素出现时如何换算的量刑比例就成为司法实践中的当务之急。     

DOWNWARD DEPARTURES FOR SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENDERS: LOCAL COURT “CORRECTIONS” TO PENNSYLVANIA'S SENTENCING GUIDELINES*

We examine downward departures for serious violent offenders, using quantitative and qualitative data from Pennsylvania. We find that offense severity and prior record have negative direct effects on downward departures, but a positive interaction effect on them. Offenders convicted of aggravated assault, those who plead guilty, young black women, and offenders sentenced in large urban courts are more likely to receive downward departures, whereas those convicted by trial, young Hispanic males, and offenders sentenced in small rural courts are less likely to receive them. We argue that downward departures represent local “corrections” to guideline recommendations when there is a mismatch between guidelines and local court actors' definitions of key focal concerns of sentencing for serious violent offenders.