發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-28 19:10

  本文選題：定罪程序 + 量刑程序��； 參考：《河北法學(xué)》2017年01期

【摘要】：英美法系采取獨(dú)立的量刑程序模式,大陸法系采取一體的量刑程序模式。二者差別表現(xiàn)在定罪與量刑中收集的信息是否高度重合、量刑程序是否適用無(wú)罪推定原則、定罪程序與量刑程序證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是否一致三方面。定罪程序與量刑程序不同的程序追求為定罪量刑程序分離提供了內(nèi)在的依據(jù)和必要性,無(wú)罪推定原則則為定罪量刑程序分離提供了來(lái)自程序法的必要,而真正促使程序的分離從來(lái)理論走向?qū)嵺`的是,則是英美法系發(fā)達(dá)的證據(jù)法。從實(shí)際出發(fā),中國(guó)現(xiàn)階段更應(yīng)當(dāng)構(gòu)建相對(duì)獨(dú)立的量刑程序。因?yàn)橹袊?guó)不具有量刑程序獨(dú)立存在的證據(jù)法條件和程序法條件。
[Abstract]:Anglo-American law system adopts the independent sentencing procedure model, while the continental law system adopts the integrated sentencing procedure model. The difference between the two shows whether the information collected in conviction and sentencing is highly consistent, whether the principle of presumption of innocence is applied in sentencing procedure, and whether the standard of proof of conviction and sentencing procedure is consistent. The pursuit of different procedure between conviction procedure and sentencing procedure provides the inherent basis and necessity for the separation of conviction and sentencing procedure, while the principle of presumption of innocence provides the necessity from procedural law for the separation of conviction and sentencing procedure. What really drives the separation of procedure from theory to practice is the developed evidence law in Anglo-American law system. Proceeding from reality, China should construct relatively independent sentencing procedure at the present stage. Because China does not have the evidence law condition and the procedure law condition which the sentencing procedure independently exists.
【作者單位】： 廣東真利律師事務(wù)所;
【基金】：國(guó)家社科基金青年項(xiàng)目《邁向制度理性的民事程序研究》(14CFX028)的階段性研究成果
【分類號(hào)】：D924.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 簡(jiǎn)樂(lè)偉;;論量刑程序證明模式的選擇[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2010年04期

2 鄭登振;;淺析我國(guó)獨(dú)立量刑程序建構(gòu)[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年06期

3 賀紅強(qiáng);陳小嫦;;量刑與定罪程序的分離和獨(dú)立[J];河南公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

4 葛雪;;淺析量刑程序中的獨(dú)立性[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年04期

5 王U，

本文編號(hào)：1947851