Court processing and sentencing of drinking drivers: Using new methodologies

Driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenses provide a unique focal point for research in criminology. In recent years, legislative and media attention has increasingly focused on the harmful acts of drunk drivers, but little is known of the characteristics of individuals arrested for driving while drunk or of the court processing and sanctioning of such offenders. The research presented here uses a variety of methodological techniques to analyze individual-level court processing data for persons convicted of DWI on a revoked license. We find that the population of persons processed for this offense have certain characteristics which are not unlike those of persons processed for street crimes. Further, we find evidence of differential sanctioning related to ethnicity and level of education. We conclude with a call for future investigation of court processing to understand better why the DWI legislative mandate is being applied differently across social groups.     

量刑建议制度可行性研究

量刑建议权是公诉权的应有之义 ,是适应庭审方式改革的理性选择 ,符合诉讼法理 ,有其存在的法理依据。从价值取向上看 ,量刑建议权有助于从程序上保障量刑公正、节约司法资源、提高诉讼效率、强化控辩双方诉讼职能等。在考察国外检察机关量刑建议权的基础上 ,应从量刑建议的时机、方式、主体及立法完善等方面构建我国的量刑建议制度。     

量刑建议制度应当缓行

量刑建议制度作为检察机关公诉活动改革的一部分 ,受到人们的广泛关注。然而 ,在同国外类似制度作了相应比较后 ,可以看出 ,量刑建议制度的运作需要特定的条件配合和制度支撑 ,在我国目前现有的状况下 ,由于条件的不足和制度的缺乏 ,决定了该制度应当缓行。     

关于量刑建议权的几点思考

量刑建议权是公诉权的重要内容,是求刑权的外在表现,本文在论证量刑建议权价值合理性的基础上,结合司法实践,对量刑建议抗诉权行使的时间、载体及具体内容提出了构想。并论证量刑建议与抗诉的关系。     

渎职侵权类案件立案与量刑标准衔接问题思考

2006年7月26日正式公布实施的《最高人民检察院关于渎职侵权犯罪案件立案标准的规定》的修订实施在司法实践中还是存在与量刑标准衔接方面的问题。为准确打击渎职侵权类犯罪,有必要修改或出台与新的规定相衔接的量刑标准之司法解释。     

量刑程序的裁判权控制

与其他大陆法国家一样,中国刑事诉讼法确立了定罪与量刑一体化的程序模式。按照这一模式,刑事审判程序的设置主要是围绕着控制定罪问题而展开的,定罪依据与量刑依据的不对称、量刑程序中的缺乏诉讼权、量刑程序证据规则的缺失等,使法官不能充分考虑量刑的各种因素,不能体现量刑的个别化,无法实现对量刑程序的裁判权控制,容易造成自由裁量权的滥用。因此应建立定罪与量刑的分离程序,设计量刑控制为中心的证据规则,建立量刑听证制度,并设计相关的配套制度,将控辩审的对抗理念和模式引入量刑中,有效制约法官在量刑上的自由裁量权。     

Why Should Remorse be a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing?

This article critically examines the rationales for the well-settled principle in sentencing law that an offender’s remorse is to be treated as a mitigating factor. Four basic types of rationale are examined: remorse makes punishment redundant; offering mitigation can induce remorse; remorse should be rewarded with mitigation; and remorse should be recognised by mitigation. The first three rationales each suffer from certain weaknesses or limitations, and are argued to be not as persuasive as the fourth. The article then considers, and rejects, two arguments against remorse as a mitigating factor in sentencing: that the crime, not the offender, is the focus of punishment; and that the truly remorseful offender would not ask for mitigation. The article concludes with a brief consideration of whether a lack of remorse should be an aggravating factor.

论定罪量刑的社会学模式

现行刑事立法赋予法官享有一定的定罪量刑自由裁量权,该自由裁量权受诸多案件社会结构因素影响,案件社会结构因素影响定罪量刑的过程及其表现出的样式就是定罪量刑社会学模式。定罪量刑的社会学模式以案件社会学理论为参照,并基本被实证研究所证实。由于同性质的具体案件的社会结构不同或同一案件在不同诉讼阶段的社会结构不同,法官受其影响程度也不同,定罪量刑不公正现象由此而生。实现公正定罪量刑的关键在于避免定罪量刑社会学模式发生作用。