刑事审判的二次量刑法

所谓二次量刑法,也称二次性具体量刑法,即在量刑过程中,首先根据犯罪社会危害性的大小,遵循罪刑相适应的原则,结合犯罪社会危害性发生过程中的各种情形,为犯罪选择一个与之相适应的基本刑,然后根据犯罪人人身危险性的大小,遵循刑罚目的的要求,结合犯罪人人身危险性发展过程中的各种情节,逐一量刑后,再对原先选择的基本刑进行必要的调整,最后将调整后的刑罚结果作为宣告刑予以判决执行。 我们认为,在刑事审判活动中确立二次量刑法,不但是刑事立法对量刑的基本要求,也是刑事司法     

假释罪犯人身危险性评估机制研究

假释是世界各国通行的一项行刑制度,其高适用率已成为世界法律潮流.刑法视野中的人身危险性是指犯罪人再次实施犯罪的可能性.也就是说,人身危险性的主体是符合犯罪论的构成要件的犯罪人,人身危险性的大小对该犯罪人具体量刑有影响.假释罪犯即为犯罪者,对其人身危险性的评估即是对其再犯可能性的评估.建立一套行之有效的假释罪犯人身危险性评估机制可以综合的对假释罪犯进行科学的估测,从而使那些符合假释条件,不会对社会产生威胁的犯罪分子能够尽早获得的重新投入社会的机会.该机制包括罪前人生、人身危险性评估、罪后表现等方面.     

论量刑中的归因

长期以来,犯罪原因一直被我国刑事立法和刑法理论排除在量刑情节之外.笔者认为,犯罪原因对量刑有着重要影响,应该成为量刑情节.法官在量刑中寻找犯罪原因情节的过程是归因,量刑归因必需遵循一定的原则和方法.量刑归因偏差违反了罪刑均衡原则,必须克服.笔者认为,在刑事立法与刑事司法中必须考虑到归因.     

刑法中的人格问题初探——兼评人格刑法学

人格刑法学克服了刑事古典学派和刑事实证学派过于强调行为或行为人的缺陷,调和了二者之间的矛盾,将行为和行为人有机地结合起来。它立足于对人格的研究,主张考察犯罪时,将行为人的行为置于首位,同时对行为背后的人格予以关注。将行为责任和人格形成责任结合为人格责任,以此作为刑罚适用的依据。人格的综合性和整合性决定其在定罪量刑中起着不可替代的作用。把人格作为出罪的依据并不是否定人身危险性作为出罪依据,而是扩大出罪的影响因素,把人身危险性中所没有而人格中所包含的因素考虑进去。在量刑中,以社会危害性为主要依据,人格可以作为次要依据对犯罪人从重、从轻、减轻处罚起作用。     

死刑立即执行与死刑缓期执行之界限

我国刑事司法中,死刑立即执行与死刑缓期执行是一条生死界限。然而,该界限的刑法标准即刑法解释却模糊不清,通说在理论上有瑕疵,实践中难操作。包括死刑在内的基本量刑根据是犯罪的社会危害性、主观恶性与犯罪人的人身危险性。死刑适用的标准是犯罪事实本身—社会危害性和主观恶性;死刑缓期执行的标准是犯罪人因素—人身危险性。     

浅析刑事责任的根源

我国在相当长一段时间内,学者的主流观点认为刑法是规定犯罪和刑罚的法律规范,殊不知刑事责任是与犯罪和刑罚紧密联系的问题,刑事立法、刑事司法以及刑法理论所要解决的根本问题就是刑事责任问题。具体而言,从国家的角度讲,是国家为什么能够追究犯罪行为人的刑事责任;从犯罪行为人角度讲,是其为什么要承担刑事责任。笔者认为主观恶性与人身危险性应成为刑事责任的根源。     

对我国未成年人犯罪不适用死刑的几点思考

一、这一规定有悖罪刑相适应原则 关于未成年人犯罪不适用死刑,我国刑法科学认为,未成年犯罪人的责任能力相对不够完备,因而其犯罪的刑事责任相对要轻。①既然刑法规定１６周岁以上负完全刑事责任,这种提法就不完全科学,也不符合我国刑法的罪刑相适应原则,即刑罚的轻重与犯罪分子所犯罪行和承担的刑事责任相适应原则。罪刑相适应原则是我国刑事立法和司法都应当遵循的基本准则,在刑法已经根据该原则规定了相对确定的法定刑之后,该原则实际上主要是量刑原则,即提供基准（社会危害性与人身危害性）的原则。在目前的认识能力与技术水…     

论人身危险性在刑法中的定位

本文在评议诸说的基础上 ,从“人身危险性是社会危害性的有机组成部分”的观点出发 ,认为人身危险性是影响犯罪社会危害性的一个重要因素 ,其地位就如同危害结果 ,是犯罪构成的选择要件 ,是量刑时必须加以考虑的重要因素。将人身危险性通过立法方式纳入犯罪构成要件中 ,是保证人身危险性理论不被滥用的法律基础。文章进一步讨论了我国刑法中规定的“人身危险犯”及其类型 ,刑罚个别化———人身危险性对刑罚适用的具体影响。     

贪污贿赂案件“轻”量刑研究

刑罚,是刑法的两个基本范畴(即犯罪与刑罚)之一。刑罚的轻重,应当与刑事责任的大小成正比,应当反映行为的社会危害程度及行为人的人身危险性,应当适应法定刑的幅度。我们注意到,在贪污贿赂案件中,存在着宣告刑“轻“这一普遍现象,宣告刑多为法定刑的下限。我们称之为贪污贿赂案件的“轻“量刑。本文拟通过分析侦查部门收集证据对量刑的影响,及研究量刑这一动态系统来摸索一条科学的量刑之路。关于量刑概念,在国内各种著作中表述不太一致。有的认为:“量刑是人民法院对于犯罪分子依法裁量决定刑罚的活动。“有的认为:“量刑是人民法院在定罪的基础上。依法确定对犯罪人是否判处     

从人身危险性出发正确贯彻“宽严相济”刑事政策——以未成年人犯罪为视角

"宽严相济"刑事司法政策要求该严则严,当宽则宽,宽中有严,严中有宽.但该政策在我国未成年人刑事案件的贯彻执行中常常陷入误区,凡是未成年人犯罪的案件,一概从轻处理.这很可能导致未成年人再次犯罪的可能性增强,无法实现矫正未成年人临时犯罪人格的目的.为了正确贯彻"宽严相济"刑事司法政策,应该以未成年犯罪人的人身危险性作为司法者在量刑时进行自由裁量的参考依据.未成年人人身危险性评估机制包括人身危险性的评估时间、实施主体、评估方法和评估程序.     

人身危险性理论评析

人身危险性源于犯罪学对犯罪原因的研究 ,后进入刑法学领域 ,在刑法学领域对人身危险性涵义的理解应该立足于定罪量刑。同时在评价人身危险性时 ,也要与行为的社会危害性评价相区别 ,既要避免把人身危险性归于社会危害性 ,又要避免重复评价。     

从许霆案和刘涌案看人格与人身危险性

人身危险性是影响量刑的因素,是实施宽严相济刑事政策的重要依据.而许霆案与刘涌案正好是根据人身危险性大小从宽与从严的典型案例.人身危险性的大小主要依靠人格特征来判断,人格具有整体性和可测性,共同性和差异性,自然性和社会性,稳定性和可变性,内隐性和外显性.     

论量刑精确制导

我国《刑法》第5条既是刑法的基本原则,也是量刑公正的一般标准,它要求量刑精确制导,最大限度地避免刑罚误差。实现量刑精确制导的根本出路是理论创新和方法创新,这主要表现在三个方面:(1)依法构建量刑标尺,将法定刑空间划分为200个刻度,把其中各种刑罚折算或者虚拟为有期徒刑的月数,明确1个刻度所体现的不同性质刑罚的度量,用以计算刑罚的轻重程度;(2)在正确定罪并找准法定刑的前提下,理性评价犯罪人具有的量刑情节,将其所反映的社会危害程度和人身危险程度用一定数值(积分)表示,借以计算行为人罪责的大小程度;(3)将量刑情节的轻重积分与量刑空间的轻重刻度按"1∶1"的标准相对应,前者在相应量刑空间中的读数,便是量刑公正的最佳适度。     

Personal and Vicarious Experience with the Criminal Justice System as a Predictor of Punitive Sentencing Attitudes

This study examined the impact of prior personal or vicarious experience with the criminal justice system on sentencing attitudes. Existing research on sentencing attitudes has examined factors such as race, gender, income level, political affiliation, and education level, but few research studies have focused on actual contact with the criminal justice system and its influence on perceptions of sentencing as either too harsh or too lenient. The current study utilized data collected by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Over 1,500 respondents were surveyed nationwide in 2006 regarding sentencing attitudes. Logistic regression analysis was utilized to assess the impact of factors of interest on sentencing attitudes. Results indicated that individuals who had been charged with a crime (personal experience), or who had an immediate relative or close friend who had been charged (vicarious experience), were more likely to perceive the criminal justice system as too harsh, regardless of race/ethnicity.     

论未遂犯的处罚依据

犯罪未得逞,实际上就是对刑法所保护的客体没有发生刑法分则所要求的侵害结果。然而,各国刑法对于着手实施犯罪行为,由于犯罪分子意志以外的原因而未得逞的情形几乎都犯罪化了,这就涉及到处罚未遂犯的依据问题。旧派主张以行为对刑法所保护的客体造成的现实危险为依据,而新派则认为犯罪行为所征表出的危险人格是处罚未遂犯的依据。通过比较研究,我们认为,主观罪过是处罚未遂犯的唯一依据。     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

刑法人格主义的检讨与革新

刑法人格主义的思想发源于刑法主观主义阵营,经过刑法客观主义阵营的批判与吸收,在当代演化成人格刑法学等理论成果,并成为折衷主义的重要产物。发展中的刑法人格主义应当遵循法治的基本精神,谨慎地对待人身危险性问题,决不能抛弃行为这一基本概念而陷入主观主义的危险境地。西方国家将人格因素渗透到刑事立法的事实,暗合了我国刑法学理论的发展趋势,有必要科学地对待人格因素在定罪机制中发挥的作用,并在量刑和行刑过程中及时推广人格调查制度和人格矫正制度。     

Exercising Options: An Assessment of the Use of Alternative Sanctions for Drug Offenders

In this paper, we explore a relatively unexamined area of sentencing—the use of alternative sanctions. While researchers have discussed the potential uses and misuses of alternative sanctions, few have focused on who receives them and why. We argue that, while alternative sanctions have the potential to be useful tools, they also open “windows of discretion” that may disadvantage certain groups. We use quantitative and qualitative data from Washington State to explore how alternative sanctions are applied in cases involving felony drug offenders. The results of quantitative analyses are largely consistent with current theories of sentencing in that court officials rely heavily on indicators of danger and blameworthiness in determining when to apply alternative sanctions. Qualitative analyses, however, suggest that decisions about alternative sanctions are complex, and that court officials’ beliefs about the fairness and efficacy of sentencing options influence the extent to which they will use available alternatives. Implications for criminal justice theory, public policy, and future research are discussed.     

论量刑根据──兼及刑法第61条的立法完善

量刑根据是量刑的基础。我国刑法中的刑事责任的内涵不同于欧陆刑法中的责任,决定了我国不能照搬欧陆刑法关于量刑根据的规定。我国的量刑根据由行为刑事责任与性格刑事责任所构成,行为刑事责任是基本的量刑根据,性格刑事责任是补充的量刑根据,两者的结合兼顾了报应与预防。行为刑事责任的程度表现为基本法定刑、加重或者减轻法定刑和由犯罪情节所影响的处罚轻重等三个层次。性格刑事责任的程度应由法官具体判断。现行刑法第61条关于量刑根据的规定,存在主旨不明和表述不清的弊端,应当加以完善。     

SENTENCING IN CONTEXT: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS

Criminal sentencing is, along with arresting and prosecuting, among the most important of formal social control decisions. In this study we use hierarchical modeling to test hypotheses about contextual level influences and cross level interaction effects on local court decisions. Most of the explanatory "action," our analysis shows, is at the individual case level in criminal sentencing. We also find evidence that local contextual features–such as court organizational culture, court caseload pressure, and racial and ethnic composition–affect sentencing outcomes, either directly or in interaction with individual factors. We conclude by discussing theoretical implications of our findings, and how our study points out some dilemmas among civil rights, local autonomy and organizational realities of criminal courts.