VARIATION IN TRIAL PENALTIES AMONG SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENSES*

We examine the differences in the sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by jury trial among defendants convicted of serious violent offenses. Drawing from a focal concerns and court communities perspective on court decision making, we develop several hypotheses about jury trial penalties for serious violent offenders, and how such penalties may vary by offense characteristics, defendant characteristics, and court contexts. Our hierarchical models using Pennsylvania sentencing data from 1997 to 2000 reveal that defendants are substantially penalized if they exercise their right to a jury trial and then lose. Furthermore, this jury trial penalty is not evenly assessed, but depends on the seriousness and type of offense, defendant criminal history, and court contextual characteristics such as caseload, court community size, local violent crime rates, and the size of local black populations.     

英美两国刑事法官的证据调查权评析

人们长期认为,英美法系的法官在法庭上一般是消极、被动地听审,却不能积极调查证据。事实上,英美两国的立法与审判实践却表明:法官可以询问证人、传唤证人出庭,或进行"庭外勘验"。尤其在没有陪审团参与的审判中,法官能更加主动地调查证据。这说明,英美两国的刑事法官并非完全消极、被动,特别是当庭审主体变为一元的职业法官时,他因对案件事实最终负责,而更加具有调查证据的天然冲动。由此可见,中国刑事法官在庭审中无需亦不能塑造成纯粹的仲裁者角色,而应保留适当的且受到法律合理规制的证据调查权。     

法院审理认罪认罚案件疑难问题研究

认罪认罚从宽制度的广泛适用,进一步促进刑事案件审判活动的繁简分流,提升刑事审判效率,但也在挑战着传统的刑事审判规则。作为行使刑事审判权力的国家机关,法院在审理认罪认罚案件过程中,存在法检关系、审理程序、庭审内容、应对上诉方式等方面的转变,同时,还面临精准量刑难以推进、程序效率价值不明、庭审实质效果不足、对上诉权制约无力等方面的难题。对此亟需通过科学的顶层设计,提升法院适用认罪认罚从宽制度的综合质效,其举措应包括但不限于:限定精准量刑的适用条件、健全分案和程序转化规则、明确庭审的审理重点和审理方式、确定并规范专门的上诉程序。     

Trial Penalties in Federal Sentencing: Extra‐Guidelines Factors and District Variation

The guarantee of the right to a jury trial lies at the heart of the principles that underlie the American criminal justice system's commitment to due process of law. We investigate the differential sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by trial in U.S. District Courts. We first investigate how much of any federal plea/trial sentencing differences are accounted for by substantial assistance to law enforcement, acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice, and other Guideline departures. Second, we investigate how such differences vary according to offense and defendant characteristics, as well as court caseloads and trial rates. We use federal sentencing data for fiscal years 2000–02, along with aggregate data on federal district court caseload features. We find that meaningful trial penalties exist after accounting for Guidelines‐based rationales for differentially sentencing those convicted by guilty plea versus trial. Higher district court caseload pressure is associated with greater trial penalties, while higher district trial rates are associated with lesser trial penalties. In addition, trial penalties are lower for those with more substantial criminal histories, and black men. Trial penalties proportionately increase, however, as Guideline minimum sentencing recommendations increase. We also supplement our analysis with interview and survey data from federal district court participants, which provide insights into the plea reward/trial penalty process, and also suggest important dimensions of federal court trial penalties that we cannot measure.     

刑事自诉、公诉案件庭前审查程序比较

庭前审查是刑事案件正式庭审的必经程序,但我国公诉、自诉案件庭前审查程序的运作方式却存在明显的矛盾,与正当程序应具有的涵义相去甚远,这不仅可能使公众对法律的理性产生怀疑,并会将法律的运行置入尴尬。     

案卷笔录中心主义——对中国刑事审判方式的重新考察

中国刑事审判中存在着一种“以案卷笔录为中心”的审判方式。在这一审判方式下,公诉方通过宣读案卷笔录来主导和控制法庭调查过程,法庭审判成为对案卷笔录的审查和确认程序,不仅各项控方证据的可采性是不受审查的,而且其证明力也被作出了优先选择。结果。现代刑事证据规则在这种审判方式下难以有存在的基础,法庭审理只能流于形式,那种通过当庭审判来形成裁判结论的机制和文化难以形成。不抛弃这种案卷笔录中心主义的审判方式,任何以加强庭审功能为宗旨的司法改革将没有存在的空间。     

Seeing the improvement of the criminal trial structure from China’s criminal courtroom arrangements (tribunal design)

The setting of criminal court has become an important representation of the criminal trial structure due to its visual and vivid reflection of the legal position and relations among the three parties of litigation, i.e. the prosecuting party, the advocating party and the judge. As a result of the influence of ancient “inquest” centered trial mode, lack of the defendant’s right to silence and incomplete revolution of the criminal trial mode, the existing criminal court setting features an umbrella shaped structure. To reform the criminal trial structure in China, we should eliminate the air of “inquest” from the existing court interrogation mode, strengthen the hearing of evidence and set up a equiangular triangle shaped trial structure of neutral trial, equality between the prosecuting and advocating parties and litigant oriented. __________ Translated from the Jurist Review, 2005, (2) (in Chinese)     

诉判同一与变更罪名

法院在刑事诉讼中有最终确定罪名和适用罚条的权力。但是 ,法院的这一权力应当受到控审分离、不告不理、辩护原则等诸多因素的制约 ,并不得迳行做出恶化被告人的处境的判决。本文对法院变更起诉指控的罪名和罚条问题作了比较分析 ,并阐明了我国法院在刑事判决中变更起诉指控的罪名和罚条应当遵循的规则。     

论刑事诉讼与行政诉讼的冲突及其解决

为解决刑事诉讼中出现的行政问题及行政诉讼中出现的刑事问题,避免行政诉讼与刑事诉讼审理结果的冲突,应将两类诉讼中的相关问题分为本诉附属问题与审判前提问题,允许法院刑事审判庭在特定情况下审理行政问题;在对同一行为究竟应承担刑事责任还是行政责任难以确定时,以“刑事责任优先”为处理原则。     

从纸上谈兵到水滴石穿——非法口供排除程序的构造反思

高举人权保障大旗的刑事诉讼立法淡化了刑事诉讼构造的路径选择,但是,基于一种结构缺陷,我国新近立法所确立和完善的审判前供述排除规则很容易沦为"纸面上的法"而难以转化为"行动中的法"。一方面,因为没有庭前法官和庭审法官的分离与法官和陪审团的分权,一元化的法庭可能会造成非法获取的口供从大门排除又从窗户跳进,而"口供排除"和"宣读口供"的两阶段在质证上存在着叠床架屋,更有为普遍地采纳审判前供述这一传闻证据"背书"的反其道而行之的趋势。另一方面,控辩不平等导致庭审最终落入长于法律辩论而轻视事实调查的旧习,而法官也陷入到底是积极调查还是消极听审的内在职责冲突之中。因此,本文设想以案例指导跳脱立法中心主义的虚无缥缈,以配套程序摆脱实质判断标准的人言人殊。     

《刑事诉讼法》再修改视野下检察机关办理刑事二审案件面临的挑战与应对

在我国两审终审制的审级制度下,刑事二审程序是绝大多数刑事案件的最后一道救济程序,具有纠错和权利救济两大基本功能,同时,刑事二审又是检察机关履行法律监督职能的重要内容。2012年3月14日第十一届全国人大五次会议通过的关于修改《刑事诉讼法》的决定,对刑事二审程序的修改内容比较多,检察机关办理刑事二审案件将面临着新的挑战。本文结合检察机关办理刑事二审案件的司法实践,探讨《刑事诉讼法修正案》对刑事二审的修改内容及给检察机关带来的挑战和应对措施。     

案卷移送主义视野下的非法证据排除规则

早在新民主主义革命时期,一些革命根据地就在刑事诉讼中形成了案卷移送主义的司法传统。在第一部刑事诉讼法典颁布以后,案卷移送主义被视为职权主义审判方式的重要配套措施。在对抗制审判方式改革和刑事诉讼法的两次修改过程中,案卷移送主义不仅由庭前移送发展到庭后移送,而且由司法层面上升到立法层面。尽管案卷移送主义在特定条件下具有一定积极意义,但是在案卷材料与法庭之间的联系没有被彻底切断的情况下,非法证据排除规则存在的必要性就会大打折扣。因为,案卷移送主义不仅导致法庭的非法证据调查流于形式,而且导致法庭难以排除受到辩护方质疑的非法证据。     

Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

Type of counsel and the outcome of criminal appeals: A research note

Previous studies have focused on type of counsel and case outcome at trial court, but only a few have done so at the appellate level. The purpose of this research note is to provide some insight into the influence of type of counsel on the out-come of criminal appeals. Results indicate that in criminal appeals from two Florida trial courts to an intermediate appellate court type of counsel was non-significant in predicting the court’s decision. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

论刑事审判监督程序的提起方式

我国刑事诉讼提起审判监督程序的方式包括决定再审、提审、指令再审以及抗诉四种方式。文章对四种方式的含义、特征、要求进行了论述 ,并着重围绕着提审、指令再审和抗诉中有争论的几个问题 ,如在什么情况下提审或指令再审、谁有权决定提审或指令再审、指令再审的下级法院如何界定 ?以及对检察院按审判监督程序提起的抗诉 ,法院是否必须受理和审理、可否指令下级法院再审 ?等等 ,进行了深入地分析探讨 ,并提出了自己的观点。     

When a corporation rapes: perceptions of rape in civil court for corporate defendants

In recent years, the coupling of poor outcomes for rape victims in criminal court and the widening scope of legal responsibility for sexual assault has prompted plaintiffs to file civil suits for rape against corporations. Unfortunately, we know little about juror perception of civilly litigated rape against corporate defendants and most jury research involving corporate defendants concerns non-sexual injury cases (e.g. premises liability, automobile accidents). With the increasing number of corporations being sued civilly for rape, we need to understand how civil juries perceive these cases. The present study investigated mock jurors’ perceptions of a fictional civil rape trial against a hotel. Community members (N?=?155) read one of three trial summaries: Civil rape trial against the alleged perpetrator, civil rape trial against a hotel, or criminal rape trial. Results indicate females have higher pro-plaintiff judgments than males in civil court, perceptions of greed typically associated with civil litigation apply to rape, and favorable plaintiff decisions are most likely against a corporate defendant. Also, mental models suggest mock jurors conceptualize criminal and civil rape cases against an individual similarly. We discuss our results in terms of psychological, legal and practical expectations when suing for rape.     

死刑案件被害人家属信访问题研究

在死刑案件中,被害人家属既难以通过量刑程序实现自己的复仇愿望,也难以通过刑事附带民事诉讼获得应有的赔偿,还难以通过司法救助机制获得充分的救助,这导致了被害人家属很难理性地对待刑事诉讼制度,进而采取信访甚至闹访等非常规手段来主张自己的诉求。为了兼顾死刑判决的法律效果和社会效果,一审法院不得不面临死刑政策与民意之间的直接冲突。一审法院尤其是承办法官在死刑案件一审判决前后始终面临着信访带来的压力。为了妥善处理死刑案件被害人信访问题,需要构建科学、合理的信访工作机制,并以此为契机,稳步、有序地推进涉诉信访工作机制的进一步完善。     

Speedy trial and the legal process

The role of speedy trial in state proceedings is empirically investigated for defendants in criminal homicide (N=444). Employing multiple regression techniques, an assessment is made of the relationship between the length of time involved in defendants' legal processing, their sociolegal status, and the final dispositions awarded by the court. The findings show that blacks and jailed defendants are processed more swiftly than their white and bailed counterparts. The consitutional guarantee of speedy trial also appears to be a state resource, in that cases adjudicated promptly result in higher conviction rates than those which are delayed. This is especially so for defendants who are not released on bail, and may be attributed to the prosecutorial success that accompanies the availability of witnesses whose memories are unclouded by time and the existence of a social climate that calls for retribution. While not related to postponement in the present study, it is suggested that the efforts of counsel in obtaining delay may become increasingly important with the adoption of the new federal guidelines.     

Child witnesses in criminal court

The last decade has witnessed a dramatic rise in public and professional concern regarding the special needs of children as witnesses in the court setting. This study was conducted to examine characteristics of criminal court cases involving children as potential witnesses that were adjudicated through a trial conviction, trial acquittal, or guilty plea, from among cases that went to court in a 12-month period in nine judicial circuits in three states. Three hundred sixteen criminal court cases involving children as potential witnesses were examined. The vast majority, of these cases involved sexual crimes against children. The results indicated that relatively few (16.8%) adjudicated cases were resolved through a trial proceeding. Sentencing varied from state to state and as a function of the disposition of the case. Future research should be conducted prospectively to determine (a) whether cases involving children as witnesses in criminal court are prosecuted at lower rates than cases involving adults and (b) the reasons that cases leave the criminal justice system prior to any court actions.This research was supported by State Justice Institute grant No. 88-11J-D-064. Points of view or opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.     

论新《刑事诉讼法》中的判决前财产没收程序

2012年3月14日,十一届全国人民代表大会第五次会议审议通过了《关于修改〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的决定》,在特别程序一章增设了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人逃匿、死亡案件违法所得的没收程序。但该程序在修改过程中和新法颁布后都引起了一些质疑,其中最大的疑问就是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人未经人民法院审判,其财产即被没收是否有违《刑法》和《刑事诉讼法》"未经人民法院依法判决,对任何人不得确定有罪"的基本原则。回应上述疑问的关键在于从法理层面厘清概念、归纳特点并界定性质,这样我们才能准确理解和适用该程序。