量刑規(guī)范化實(shí)體路徑研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-23 08:06
【摘要】：我國(guó)的刑事司法實(shí)踐中存在著比較嚴(yán)重的量刑偏差現(xiàn)象。量刑偏差產(chǎn)生的原因主要包括刑法規(guī)定不具體、估堆式量刑方法不科學(xué)、內(nèi)外因?qū)徟腥藛T的影響以及刑事政策和地域等因素的影響等。量刑規(guī)范化改革對(duì)減少量刑偏差具有極為重要的意義。 從我國(guó)的司法傳統(tǒng)和現(xiàn)狀出發(fā),量刑改革應(yīng)當(dāng)先從實(shí)體路徑入手,再完善量刑程序,最終實(shí)現(xiàn)規(guī)范化的量刑。要探索量刑規(guī)范化的實(shí)體路徑,必須首先明確我國(guó)量刑過(guò)程中的實(shí)體問(wèn)題。我國(guó)量刑過(guò)程中存在的實(shí)體問(wèn)題主要有三個(gè)大的方面,一是量刑依據(jù)不完善,二是量刑方法存在問(wèn)題,三是量刑情節(jié)體系不完備導(dǎo)致法官量刑時(shí)適用困難。國(guó)內(nèi)已有的研究和實(shí)踐做法為我們量刑規(guī)范化改革提供了借鑒和經(jīng)驗(yàn),同時(shí),美國(guó)、英國(guó)、德國(guó)等西方法治發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家對(duì)量刑依據(jù)、量刑模式和量刑方法的有益探索與嘗試也能夠?yàn)槲覈?guó)量刑規(guī)范化改革提供重要的啟示和參考。 我國(guó)量刑規(guī)范化實(shí)體路徑主要包括以下幾個(gè)方面： 第一,確立和完善量刑基準(zhǔn)。我國(guó)應(yīng)對(duì)量刑基準(zhǔn)確立的主體和步驟做出規(guī)定。量刑基準(zhǔn)的完善應(yīng)注意以下三個(gè)方面：一是明確規(guī)定全面評(píng)價(jià)原則和禁止重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)原則；二是細(xì)化現(xiàn)行刑法的法定刑幅度,增強(qiáng)刑罰裁量規(guī)則的層次性；三是制定適合我國(guó)具體情況的量刑指導(dǎo)規(guī)則。 第二,完善量刑情節(jié)。完善量刑情節(jié),既包括對(duì)作為量刑依據(jù)的量刑情節(jié)的細(xì)化,又涉及對(duì)法官量刑時(shí)對(duì)量刑情節(jié)的選擇和適用方法的改進(jìn)。具體而言,是在立法中明確“情節(jié)”的內(nèi)涵和外延；二是將酌定量刑情節(jié)法定化；三是兼顧量刑情節(jié)的內(nèi)容、功能及效力；四是正確處理社會(huì)輿論與量刑情節(jié)的關(guān)系。 第三,構(gòu)建刑事案例指導(dǎo)量刑制度。與其他案例指導(dǎo)制度相比,刑事案例指導(dǎo)制度具有特殊性,刑事案例指導(dǎo)量刑制度的建立是彌補(bǔ)刑事成文法的缺陷的重要途徑,也是我國(guó)刑事審判實(shí)踐的現(xiàn)實(shí)需要。我國(guó)應(yīng)當(dāng)從創(chuàng)制主體、案例遴選、案例的公布和廢止、案例的援引以及制度的監(jiān)督等方面入手,全方位構(gòu)建刑事案例指導(dǎo)量刑制度。 在上述基礎(chǔ)上,以量刑基準(zhǔn)的設(shè)立為根本,通過(guò)對(duì)量刑情節(jié)的細(xì)化,再加上發(fā)布刑事案例以指導(dǎo)量刑,形成三者之間的協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)制。
[Abstract]:In our country's criminal judicial practice, there is a serious phenomenon of sentencing deviation. The causes of sentencing deviation mainly include the unspecific provisions of criminal law, the unscientific method of sentencing, the influence of internal and external factors on the judges, the influence of criminal policy and regional factors, and so on. The reform of sentencing standardization is of great significance to reduce the deviation of sentencing. Proceeding from the judicial tradition and present situation of our country, the reform of sentencing should start with the substantive path, then perfect the sentencing procedure, and finally realize the standardized sentencing. In order to explore the substantive path of sentencing standardization, we must first clarify the substantive issues in the process of sentencing in China. There are three main substantive problems in the process of sentencing in our country, one is that the sentencing basis is not perfect, the other is the problem of sentencing method, and the third is the difficulty of applying the sentence to the judge due to the incomplete sentencing circumstances system. Domestic existing research and practice practices have provided us with reference and experience for the reform of sentencing standardization. Meanwhile, the United States, Britain, Germany and other developed countries with the rule of law in the west have adopted the sentencing basis. The beneficial exploration and attempt of sentencing mode and method can also provide important inspiration and reference for the reform of sentencing standardization in our country. Our country sentencing standardization entity path mainly includes the following several aspects: first, establishes and consummates the sentencing standard. Our country should stipulate the subject and steps of establishing the standard of sentencing. The following three aspects should be paid attention to in the perfection of sentencing benchmark: first, the principle of comprehensive evaluation and the principle of prohibiting repeated evaluation should be clearly stipulated; second, the statutory penalty range of current criminal law should be refined, and the hierarchy of penalty discretion rules should be enhanced. Third, the formulation of sentencing guidance rules suitable for China's specific circumstances. Second, perfect the circumstances of sentencing. Perfecting the circumstances of sentencing includes the refinement of the circumstances of sentencing as the basis of sentencing, and the improvement of the choice of circumstances and applicable methods of sentencing for judges. Specifically, it is to clarify the connotation and extension of "circumstances" in legislation; second, to legalize discretionary circumstances of sentencing; third, to take into account the content, function and effectiveness of circumstances of sentencing; and fourth, to correctly handle the relationship between public opinion and circumstances of sentencing. Third, the construction of criminal cases to guide sentencing system. Compared with other cases guidance system, criminal case guidance system has its particularity. The establishment of criminal case guidance sentencing system is an important way to make up for the defects of criminal statute law, and is also the practical need of our country's criminal trial practice. China should start from the aspects of creation subject, case selection, publication and annulment of cases, invocation of cases and supervision of system, so as to construct the sentencing system of criminal cases in all directions. On the basis of above, the establishment of sentencing benchmark as the fundamental, through the refinement of sentencing circumstances, plus the release of criminal cases to guide sentencing, the formation of the coordination mechanism between the three.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D926;D924.13
本文編號(hào)：2198425
[Abstract]:In our country's criminal judicial practice, there is a serious phenomenon of sentencing deviation. The causes of sentencing deviation mainly include the unspecific provisions of criminal law, the unscientific method of sentencing, the influence of internal and external factors on the judges, the influence of criminal policy and regional factors, and so on. The reform of sentencing standardization is of great significance to reduce the deviation of sentencing. Proceeding from the judicial tradition and present situation of our country, the reform of sentencing should start with the substantive path, then perfect the sentencing procedure, and finally realize the standardized sentencing. In order to explore the substantive path of sentencing standardization, we must first clarify the substantive issues in the process of sentencing in China. There are three main substantive problems in the process of sentencing in our country, one is that the sentencing basis is not perfect, the other is the problem of sentencing method, and the third is the difficulty of applying the sentence to the judge due to the incomplete sentencing circumstances system. Domestic existing research and practice practices have provided us with reference and experience for the reform of sentencing standardization. Meanwhile, the United States, Britain, Germany and other developed countries with the rule of law in the west have adopted the sentencing basis. The beneficial exploration and attempt of sentencing mode and method can also provide important inspiration and reference for the reform of sentencing standardization in our country. Our country sentencing standardization entity path mainly includes the following several aspects: first, establishes and consummates the sentencing standard. Our country should stipulate the subject and steps of establishing the standard of sentencing. The following three aspects should be paid attention to in the perfection of sentencing benchmark: first, the principle of comprehensive evaluation and the principle of prohibiting repeated evaluation should be clearly stipulated; second, the statutory penalty range of current criminal law should be refined, and the hierarchy of penalty discretion rules should be enhanced. Third, the formulation of sentencing guidance rules suitable for China's specific circumstances. Second, perfect the circumstances of sentencing. Perfecting the circumstances of sentencing includes the refinement of the circumstances of sentencing as the basis of sentencing, and the improvement of the choice of circumstances and applicable methods of sentencing for judges. Specifically, it is to clarify the connotation and extension of "circumstances" in legislation; second, to legalize discretionary circumstances of sentencing; third, to take into account the content, function and effectiveness of circumstances of sentencing; and fourth, to correctly handle the relationship between public opinion and circumstances of sentencing. Third, the construction of criminal cases to guide sentencing system. Compared with other cases guidance system, criminal case guidance system has its particularity. The establishment of criminal case guidance sentencing system is an important way to make up for the defects of criminal statute law, and is also the practical need of our country's criminal trial practice. China should start from the aspects of creation subject, case selection, publication and annulment of cases, invocation of cases and supervision of system, so as to construct the sentencing system of criminal cases in all directions. On the basis of above, the establishment of sentencing benchmark as the fundamental, through the refinement of sentencing circumstances, plus the release of criminal cases to guide sentencing, the formation of the coordination mechanism between the three.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D926;D924.13
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 曹三明;中國(guó)判例法的傳統(tǒng)與建立中國(guó)特色的判例制度[J];法律適用(國(guó)家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2002年12期
2 楊志斌;;英美量刑模式的借鑒與我國(guó)量刑制度的完善[J];法律適用;2006年11期
3 葉向陽(yáng);;試論審判長(zhǎng)聯(lián)席會(huì)議制度的運(yùn)行機(jī)制及功能實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];法律適用;2008年07期
4 王瑞君;;案例指導(dǎo)量刑與量刑規(guī)范化[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年08期
5 張明楷;法治、罪刑法定與刑事判例法[J];法學(xué);2000年06期
6 朱建敏;;構(gòu)建案例指導(dǎo)制度的幾個(gè)具體問(wèn)題——基于效力定位的視角[J];法治研究;2008年07期
7 張勇;;量刑規(guī)范化改革及路徑選擇[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期
8 王軍;在我國(guó)試行先例判決制度的兩個(gè)基本問(wèn)題[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年02期
9 臧冬斌;;量刑基準(zhǔn)點(diǎn)之確定基準(zhǔn)[J];河南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年05期
10 胡學(xué)相;量刑情節(jié)的立法完善[J];人民司法;1995年04期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條
1 陳至求;論民事賠償對(duì)刑罰適用的不當(dāng)影響及其對(duì)策[D];湘潭大學(xué);2007年
2 毛曉云;論中國(guó)判例制度的構(gòu)建與完善[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年
3 劉淑娥;論量刑基準(zhǔn)[D];河南大學(xué);2009年
4 李遠(yuǎn)祥;案例指導(dǎo)制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年
5 何強(qiáng);我國(guó)案例指導(dǎo)制度探析[D];廈門(mén)大學(xué);2009年
6 楊賀成;論量刑情節(jié)[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2009年
，本文編號(hào)：2198425
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/gongjianfalunwen/2198425.html
最近更新
教材專(zhuān)著
