U.S. ATTORNEYS AND SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE DEPARTURES: TESTING FOR INTERPROSECUTOR DISPARITY*

An important and highly discretionary component of the federal sentencing guidelines is the downward departure for providing substantial assistance. Critics charge that the substantial assistance departure, which requires a motion by the prosecutor, may produce the type of unwarranted sentencing disparity that the guidelines were intended to eliminate. Research reveals, for example, that jurisdictional variations are evident in the use of substance assistance departures (Johnson, Ulmer, and Kramer, 2008; Nagel and Schulhofer, 1992), and that the likelihood of receiving the departure is affected by legally irrelevant offender characteristics, which include race, ethnicity, and gender (Mustard, 2001). The purpose of this article is to extend this research by exploring the degree to which decisions regarding substantial assistance departures vary across prosecutors. Using data on offenders sentenced in three U.S. district courts and a multilevel modeling strategy, we investigate whether interprosecutor disparity exists in the likelihood of substantial assistance departures and in the criteria that prosecutors use in deciding whether to file a motion for a substantial assistance departure. Findings indicate that significant interprosecutor variation remains after taking into account offender characteristics, case characteristics, and the district in which the case is adjudicated.     

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。     

人身危险性在量刑中的思考

刑事古典学派认为惩罚犯罪就是惩罚犯罪行为,所以提出在量刑中主要考虑的是社会危害性的大小;而刑事人类学派和刑事社会学派注重对犯罪分子个体的研究,从犯罪个体中去研究惩罚的力度,在量刑的时候着重考察犯罪分子的人身危险性的大小.两者的争论由来已久,在中国的刑法理论界就是主要采取了刑事古典学派的观点,认为惩罚力度大小应该与罪行的大小相适应,造成的社会危害程度决定刑罚的轻重.那么对于犯罪分子的人身危险性在量刑时的作用究竟应该有多大呢?试从实践入手,针对我国现行法律的规定来阐述一下人身危险性在量刑中的作用,从而完善我国刑法的量刑原则.     

酌定量刑情节的泛化现象研究

当前,以死刑案件为突出代表的酌定量刑情节在司法实践中出现了泛化现象,影响了司法的公正性。这种泛化主要表现为量刑情节的事实和证据宽泛,量刑事实与犯罪事实关系松散,量刑目的与刑罚的目的产生冲突。就我国司法而言,酌定量刑情节的适用仍应遵循法定性原则,符合酌定量刑情节构成要件要求;酌定量刑事实还应符合刑罚的目的要件,酌定量刑情节与犯罪事实应当存在直接的影响关系;法官收集酌定量刑情节证据行为不得背离其中立地位。规治酌定量刑情节泛化现象必须从程序正义的角度设计酌定量刑情节适用的程序规则。     

论传统司法对量刑规范化的启示——以刑事被告与被害人的关系为视角

当前,量刑规范化的试点工作已在全国推开。科学确定各种常见量刑情节及其对基准刑的调节幅度,为最高法院补充、完善各种量刑情节的适用提供参考,是法学理论界和司法实务部门的重要责任。本文以刑事被告与被害人的关系为视角,从中国传统司法的成功经验中,梳理出三大原则,即亲属伦理原则、责任分配原则、补偿原则,发现其对合情合理合法地处理各类刑事案件,实现量刑公正,树立司法公信力,有着重要的指导意义,是祖先留给我们的遗产和智慧。对之进行创造性转化,于当代司法的进一步完善,必大有裨益。     

关于取消受贿罪中利益要件的思考

对于受贿罪,我国刑法规定了"为他人谋取利益"这一构成要件。对于这一要件,无论在理论上,还是在司法实践中,都存有争议。"为他人谋取利益"不论作为受贿罪的主观要件还是作为客观要件均不妥当,都与设立受贿罪的刑法价值目标不相适应,不能有力打击这类犯罪活动。为避免法律规定上的缺陷与漏洞,应该取消受贿罪中"为他人谋取利益"这一构成要件,可以考虑把它作为量刑情节。     

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.

“性贿赂”入罪问题研究

近些年来,权色交易现象渐有猖獗蔓延之势,正日益严重地腐蚀着国家的机体并毒害着社会的风气。但是,目前我国刑法尚未明确规定性贿赂的治罪条款。刑法仅将贿赂的内容限定为财物．也即物质性利益,而对以非物质利益的行贿与受贿留下了刑罚的死角,给不法分子以可乘之机,给社会带来了极大的危害。