法定刑中间线是量刑公正的生命线

当前量刑改革存在"中间线论"与"基准刑论"两种方案:前者认为法定刑中间线是从重与从轻处罚的分界线,是量刑公正的生命线;后者主张从重与从轻处罚的分界线是偏高中间线另行确定的基准刑,基准刑是量刑公正的根本保证.法定刑中间线是量刑公正的支点,虚拟徒刑是依法构建量刑标尺的关键,理性评价量刑情节是计算罪责程度的科学方法,积分刻度两相对应是开启量刑公正的钥匙."基准刑"不但是主观臆断的产物,而且是量刑偏差的源泉."中间线"具有恒定性、客观性、合法性、合理性、公正性、公平性,且操作简便,能够适用于我国一切地区、一切时期、一切罪行和一切犯罪人的量刑,不失为成本最低的量刑改革方案.     

论对量刑情节司法适用的规范——基于量刑情节司法适用实证之思考

根据现行刑法中有关量刑的规定，司法机关在适用刑罚时不但要以犯罪分子的罪行轻重为根据，依照刑法分则的具体规定合理量刑，轻罪轻罚，重罪重罚，罚当其罪，而且对所有的犯罪人应一律平等量刑。刑法中同时又规定了大量的量刑情节，这些量刑情节对最后的刑罚适用产生了重大的影响。如何最大地发挥量刑情节的正面作用，又避免因过多地考虑量刑情节而对刑罚的合理裁量造成干扰，在公平、正义的法治理念下实现量刑公正、合理，应当引起重视并亟待解决。     

论死刑的正确适用

本文紧紧围绕刑法关于死刑和量刑的有关规定 ,在澄清和阐明刑法相关基本理论基础上 ,明确提出并深入论证了五个问题 :(1)罪名与罪行的关系 ,法定刑是判断罪行轻重的唯一标准 ,法定最高刑为死刑是“罪行极其严重”的标志 ,对于罪行极其严重的犯罪分子 ,不判处死刑的选择范围宽于判处死刑 ;(2 )量刑情节是决定可否判处死刑的唯一根据 ,如果案件不具有从重处罚情节或者具有从轻、减轻处罚情节 ,决不能对犯罪分子适用死刑 ;(3)即使是应当判处死刑的犯罪分子 ,具有从宽处罚情节的 ,都属于“不是必须立即执行”的范围 ,只能对之适用“死缓” ;(4 )禁止将同一罪行的定罪情节重复评价为从重处罚情节 ,摆脱故意杀人罪“优先适用死刑”的理论羁绊 ,是防止死刑滥用的当务之急 ;(5 )我国刑法关于量刑情节的规定具有明显的轻刑主义倾向 ,不应当判处死刑的机率远远高于应当判处死刑 ,严格根据案件确有的量刑情节适用刑罚 ,是避免滥用死刑的重要保障。作者认为 ,死刑的存废受制于我国社会政治、经济和文化的发展状况 ,虽然主张经过一个相当时期的社会发展 ,逐步在中国废止死刑 ,但是又认为在现行刑法的框架内 ,破除传统的思维定式和摆脱错误的理论误导 ,探索依法控制死刑的科学方法 ,建立防范死刑滥用有效机制 ,是当前     

实现量刑公正性和透明性的基本理论与方法

量刑是在正确定罪的前提下,依照刑法关于从重、从轻、减轻或者免除处罚的规定,理性评价案件确有的各种量刑情节对于处罚轻重的影响力,据以在法定刑范围内或者法定刑以下,依法对犯罪人决定是否判处刑罚,判处何种刑罚、刑度或者所判刑罚是否立即执行的刑事诉讼活动。由于量刑是对犯罪人进行生杀予夺的重大问题,涉及到国家的长治久安和社会稳定,所以应当以特别审慎的态度和精密的逻辑思维,去追求量刑的最佳适度。无论是检察官在起诉书中提出“量刑建议”,律师针对检察官的量刑诉求进行“量刑答辩”,还是法官根据法庭调查和辩论所作出的“量刑判…     

《电脑辅助量刑系统》的一般原理

本文认为我国刑法规定的绝大多数罪名,都可再划分为基本罪和派生的轻、重罪类型;只有正确认定犯罪类型,才能决定适用何种法定刑。在法定刑幅度明确之后,量刑情节是处罚轻重的唯一根据。情节的量化,是量刑适当的前提。作者提出对情节“两次评价五级划分法”,即评价情节份量“等级”和处罚轻重“程度”,可以实现定量分析。其乘积就是特定量刑情节的量化积分,于是每个情节都可以划分为14种不同情况。将全案所有情节的轻、重积分,分别逆向表示在法定刑幅度内,幅度空间的一定刻度,反映不同的刑种和刑期,从而使较宽的量刑幅度压缩为相对较窄的幅度,取其中间线,就是量刑的最佳适度。用这种理论研制电脑《辅助量刑系统》,操作简便,能够避免量刑畸轻畸重的错误。     

我国刑法分则法定刑设置评析

法定刑是指刑法分则对各种犯罪所规定的应处刑罚的标准，它包括适用刑罚的种类和量刑幅度，公正合理的法定刑设置是确保刑事司法正义的前提和基础。但长期以来，由于理论研究的程度不够，致使我国刑法分则法定刑的设置存在一定的缺陷。尽管经过1997年刑法的修订．刑法分则在法定刑设置方面取得了进步，但法定刑的有些规定仍不符合确定性、合理性、明确性的要求，在某些方面有意无意地设置了追究犯罪的障碍。影响了我国刑罚的目的、功能的实现。     

论量刑原则与量刑公正——关于修改完善我国量刑原则的立法建议

量刑公正是量刑原则的灵魂,量刑原则是量刑公正的保障.现行刑法第5条既是我国刑法的基本原则之一又是量刑活动的指导方针,但是其他规定量刑原则的条文却与之不相匹配,未能切实贯彻和体现"罪责刑相适应"精神,从而赋予法官宽泛的刑罚自由裁量权,给情、权介入诉讼留有游刃空间,致使量刑偏差不可避免.为了坚持刑法第5条,改善实现量刑公正的法律环境,将法官的刑罚自由裁量权限制在合理范围,最大限度地避免刑罚打击误差,促进社会和谐,保障国家长治久安,本文特提出修改完善我国量刑原则的立法建议.     

量刑的理论与实践研究——量刑基准的确立

同样性质、同样情节、同样后果的犯罪,受到不同的处罚,必然会引起人们对法律公正的怀疑,动摇人们对法律的信仰和信心.量刑的公正应当体现在不同个案的相互比较中.刑法规定的法定量刑情节需要一个参照基准,应在假定不考虑犯罪人的具体法定量刑情节的基础上,考虑犯罪人所有的与犯罪有关的全部犯罪细节包括酌定情节,抽象地确定这一犯罪应当适用的基准刑罚,再在此基础上,考虑量刑的法定情节,对基准刑罚进行适当的调整.目前需要做的工作是在立法方面进一步细化法定刑范围,通过司法解释进一步明确量刑标准,承认案例的指导作用.     

处刑较轻在量刑规范化视野下的界定标准研究

我国《刑法》第12条规定了溯及力的一般原则—从旧兼从轻,最高院司法解释将处刑较轻界定为法定刑较轻。法定刑较轻不等于宣告刑较轻,将处刑较轻等同于法定刑较轻,为以事后法加重被告人的刑罚提供了制度空间,不利于被告人的权利保护。在量刑规范化及《刑法》修正案八(以下简称修八)已正式实施的背景下,有必要对处刑较轻的认定标准做进一步研究。     

论“认罪态度”在量刑情节中的定位

传统刑法和司法实践将"认罪态度"定位于酌定量刑情节,由于立法的模糊性和司法人员的认识差异,造成了量刑时空上的不平衡。本文认为,随着"自首"、"立功"和"坦白"的逐步法定化,将"积极退赃"和"赔偿损失"升格为法定量刑情节的条件已经具备。它不仅没有违背罪刑法定原则,而且依赖于刑罚改造理论和人身危险性理论的理论支撑,还有相关法律和司法解释作为法律基础及外国立法提供的参考和借鉴。因此,应将"积极退赃"和"赔偿损失"升格为法定量刑情节的条件和从宽处罚的具体标准,实现"认罪态度"在量刑情节中法律地位的转变及司法的公平与公正。     

One perspective on sentencing reform in the United States

Summary and Conclusion The most difficult part of constructing a system of criminal sentencing is to be able to give a rationale for each sentence. Historically, this has been an unsurmountable hurdle because it required reformers to resolve the irresolvable conflict between utility and desert as sentencing goals and to measure the immeasurably complex relative utility of the alterative utilitarian strategies of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The good news is that we need not try to leap these insurmountable hurdles: the greatest utility is found in a desert distribution of liability and punishment. By following desert, the criminal law can establish its moral credibility with the public and thereby harness the real sources of social control—the power of social sanctions and internalized norms. In the context of criminal sentencing, this means the system must establish a reputation for giving offenders the precise amount of punishment they deserve. Despite the utilitarian importance of desert, however, nondesert concerns can govern the selection of the sanctioning method. As long as the total punitive bite of all aspects of an offender’s sentence is what the offender deserves, judges otherwise can be left free to construct the sentence they think will best avoid future crime. With a system of punishment units and punishment equivalencies, a desert-based determination of the amount of punishment can co-exist with a selection of sanctioning methods looking to nondesert, utilitarian considerations, such as the need for deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. This essay is based upon lectures given at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan. B.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1970; LL.M., Harvard University 1975; J.D., University of California-Los Angeles 1973; Dip. Leg. Stud., Cambridge University 1976.     

One perspective on sentencing reform in the United States

Summary and Conclusion The most difficult part of constructing a system of criminal sentencing is to be able to give a rationale for each sentence. Historically, this has been an unsurmountable hurdle because it required reformers to resolve the irresolvable conflict between utility and desert as sentencing goals and to measure the immeasurably complex relative utility of the alterative utilitarian strategies of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The good news is that we need not try to leap these insurmountable hurdles: the greatest utility is found in a desert distribution of liability and punishment. By following desert, the criminal law can establish its moral credibility with the public and thereby harness the real sources of social control—the power of social sanctions and internalized norms. In the context of criminal sentencing, this means the system must establish a reputation for giving offenders the precise amount of punishment they deserve. Despite the utilitarian importance of desert, however, nondesert concerns can govern the selection of the sanctioning method. As long as the total punitive bite of all aspects of an offender’s sentence is what the offender deserves, judges otherwise can be left free to construct the sentence they think will best avoid future crime. With a system of punishment units and punishment equivalencies, a desert-based determination of the amount of punishment can co-exist with a selection of sanctioning methods looking to nondesert, utilitarian considerations, such as the need for deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. This essay is based upon lectures given at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan. B.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1970; LL.M., Harvard University 1975; J.D., University of California-Los Angeles 1973; Dip. Leg. Stud., Cambridge University 1976.     

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.     

量刑制度宏观问题研究

量刑制度的外观为刑罚裁量与体系化构成 ,包括缓刑制度、死刑缓期执行、再犯和特别减轻制度 ;量刑制度具有规范、限制、整合、贯彻功能 ;运行量刑制度需要考虑运行环境和权力介入、媒体舆论、法官好恶、治安形势等相关影响因素 ;量刑制度存在两个基本走向 ,即综合化与精确化。量刑制度改革宜从总体目标、制度完善并结合刑事诉讼改革三方面同步进行     

故意杀人罪的死刑裁量基准——“丁汉忠案”的文本梳理和法理审视

目前我国有关故意杀人罪中死刑裁量因素的审查难有真切、统一的基准,而在司法实践中对相关刑法条文含义的理解和阐释较为草率;最高人民法院的指导性案例体现的裁判趣旨未得到充分领会;各量刑因素的作用莫衷一是、标准不一,“估堆”量刑的困境萦绕其间,因而须探索故意杀人罪中相对合理的死刑裁量基准。具体而言,须区分各量刑因素的轻重、位阶,建构以责任刑为主、预防刑为辅的死刑裁量基准。至于是否入围死刑圈主要是仰仗责任刑阶段的判断。若责任刑阶段均是从严因素,基本会入围死刑圈的审查。死刑圈内的三种准刑种如何抉择,取决于对行为人的人身危险性判断。在预防刑阶段若均是从宽因素,一般死缓的判决即可满足要求;若从宽因素和从严因素交错,死缓限制减刑的判决基本可满足要求;若只有从严因素,则有判决死刑立即执行的可能。     

Modeling the Distribution of Sentence Length Decisions Under a Guidelines System: An Application of Quantile Regression Models

How should sentencing disparity be assessed when decisions are constrained under a sentencing guidelines system? Much of the debate over the measurement of sentence disparity under a guidelines system has focused primarily on using specific values from within the sentencing grid (e.g., minimum recommended sentence) or on using interaction terms in regression models to capture the non-additive effects of offense severity and prior record on length of sentence. In this paper, I propose an alternative method for assessing sentencing disparity that uses quantile regression models. These models offer several advantages over traditional OLS analyses (and related linear models) of sentence length, by allowing for an examination of the effects of case and offender characteristics across the full distribution of sentence lengths for a given sample of offenders. The analysis of the distribution of sentence lengths with quantile regression models allows for an examination of questions such as: Do offender characteristics, such as race or offense severity, have the same effect on sentence length for the 10% of offenders who receive the shortest sentences as they do for the 10% of offenders who receive the longest sentences? I illustrate the application and interpretation of these models using 1998 sentencing data from Pennsylvania. Key findings show that the effects of case and offender characteristics are variable across the distribution of sentence lengths, meaning that traditional linear models assuming a constant effect fail to capture important differences in how case and offender characteristics affect punishment decisions. I discuss the implications of these findings for understanding sentencing disparitites, as well as other possible applications of quantile regression models in the study of crime and the criminal justice system.     

刑事立法的发展方向

我国今后刑事立法的发展方向应是：(1)分散性：集中性、统一性的刑事立法模式并不现实,应当由刑法典、单行刑法、附属刑法、轻犯罪法分别规定不同性质的犯罪。(2)有效性：刑事立法应当注重犯罪化的有效性,避免无效的犯罪化；合理利用刑罚减免制度,从各个环节上有效地预防和抑止犯罪；善于发挥轻刑的作用,避免无效的重刑化。(3)类型性：刑法分则性条文对各种犯罪应当作类型性的描述,同时注重传统犯罪的类型化；对构成要件的描述应采用例示法,并符合法条的目的。(4)国际性：应当将所缔结的国际条约的内容及其精神转化为国内刑法的具体规定；采用国际社会通行的表述；借鉴发达国家的刑事立法经验。     

Paying Money for Freedom: Effects of Monetary Compensation on Sentencing for Criminal Traffic Offenses in China

The current study seeks to understand the role that monetary compensation plays on the joint occurrence of imprisonment and probation for criminal traffic offenses in China. We argue that monetary compensation influences sentencing decisions primarily by manipulating the probation terms in favor of the defendant. With monetary compensation directly increasing the chances of a more lenient punishment through extended probation as opposed to more severe penalties, we have found sentence lengths for criminal traffic offenses to be concentrated at 36 months, the maximum length eligible for probation. All available sentencing documents for criminal traffic offenses from 2014 to 2016 were retrieved from the China Judgments Online website. The final dataset contains 141,689 observations. Following a joint model approach using both sentence length and probation as outcomes, we utilized a Zero-Truncated-Generalized-Inflated-Poisson model to address the distributional characteristics of sentence length, such as discrete integers, non-zero values, and the concentration of data on certain points. To avoid detecting effects of little scientific importance due to our large sample size, all results were evaluated using bootstrapping techniques. We found that the likelihood of probation increases when monetary compensation is provided, but that compensation does not make a significant difference on the sentence length for those defendants receiving less than 36 months imprisonment. When considering the concentration of sentence lengths at specific values, monetary compensation was positively associated only with the chance of inflation at the value of 36 months, and the probation itself became insignificant in predicting sentence length. The significant positive relationship between monetary compensation and lenient sentencing outcomes suggests that compensation plays a crucial role in the Chinese judicial process. Our study will not only help researchers to better understand the legal process in China, but it will also benefit the larger community as an example of utilizing new sources of data.     

Editorial

This article concerns the problems of proportionality in the theory of punishment. The problem is how to determine whether the severity of a punishment for a criminal offense is proportional to the seriousness of that offense. The resolution to this problem proposed in the article is that, first, one understand punishment as pain or loss intentionally and openly inflicted on someone S in retaliation for something S did, by a person or agent who is at least as powerful as S, and, second, one take such retaliatory pain or loss as, within stable social groups, a means for preserving social order. Accordingly, it is argued that, on this proposal, the measure by which the severity of punishment is determined to be proportional to the seriousness of the crime for which it is inflicted is the minimal amount of pain or loss necessary to preserve social order. Sentencing policies that follow this measure, it is then observed, tend to yield less severe punishments than the policies that classical deterrence theory yields. Finally, the article offers an argument for regarding as morally more defensible sentencing policies whose goal is preserving social order than sentencing policies whose goal is that of classical deterrence theory, which is to achieve the smallest incidence of crimes consistent with not diminishing the overall welfare of society.