当代中国刑罚制度改革论纲

当今中国的刑罚制度需要在近年来已有进步的基础上进行系统改革和完善。在刑种和刑罚体系方面,需要通过立法和司法进一步严格限制死刑,完善或充实自由刑、财产刑、资格刑,并对刑罚体系和结构作整体调整;在刑罚裁量制度方面,应当将量刑原则明确化,量刑标准具体化,某些重要的酌定量刑情节法定化;在行刑制度方面,应当确立开放性行刑的理念,并建立、健全社区矫正制度;在刑罚消灭制度方面,应当考虑增补行刑时效和单位犯罪的时效制度,激活赦免制度;在特殊人群的刑罚适用方面,应对未成年犯罪人的刑罚适用予以全面的宽缓和有针对性的改革,并对老年犯罪人贯彻刑罚适用的宽恤。     

量刑建议制度探析——以重庆市A区检察院量刑建议工作为调查分析样本

量刑建议制度在试行过程中逐渐暴露出定罪建议权限设置低于量刑建议权、量刑建议随起诉书移送导致出现因量刑理由变化影响量刑的准确性、量刑建议在庭审中提出的阶段缺乏统一规定等制度设计上的缺陷,以及面临量刑建议与法院判决存在一定偏差、量刑建议是否被采纳受法院内部标准和刑事政策变化的影响大、法院就低采纳量刑建议、量刑建议未完全纳入判决书等制度运行中的弊端。应当建立量刑建议听取辩护人和被害人意见的制度,取消量刑建议讨论程序,实行庭前证据开示,赋予公诉人在法庭上改变或者撤回量刑建议权,将量刑建议采纳情况作为抗诉依据,设置科学合理的量刑建议考核标准。     

浅议量刑建议的幅度

量刑建议是检察机关司法改革的重要课题，理论界对量刑建议权的性质、建立的必要性、可行性以及如何进行制度建构的问题存在诸多争议，其中受关注最多、争议最大的问题就是量刑建议幅度。本文立足于量刑建议幅度制度构建的现实性与可操作性．对量刑建议幅度做简要论述。     

中国量刑程序改革：误区与正道

对抗化的量刑程序改革试点效果不尽如意,某种程度上可以归因于制度改革所赖于支撑的理论根据。该理论认为,量刑制度的主要问题是量刑程序不公正,解决之道是借鉴英美模式,建立对抗式量刑程序。然而,真正引起社会普遍关注乃至广泛质疑的是量刑不均衡与量刑僵化问题,这主要是实体法问题;认为英美法系在传统上采用对抗式量刑程序的观点在一定程度上也是对英美法系量刑制度与实践的误读。未来的量刑制度改革应以实体性改革为主,程序性改革为辅;而在量刑程序改革方面,不宜大改,可以小改或微调。     

论量刑建议

量刑建议源于起诉权中的量刑请求权,它具有启动量刑程序、制约量刑裁判、明确证明责任、预设监督标尺的效力,对于提高量刑的公开性、公正性和公信力,保障当事人诉讼权利,强化对量刑裁判的制约监督,提高公诉质量和水平,都具有重要意义,同时也给检察机关带来严峻的挑战。以域外量刑建议相关制度和实践为参照,我国量刑建议制度构建应在量刑建议的范围、方式、时机与形式、决策与修正等方面作出设计。为适应量刑建议给刑事诉讼带来的影响,我国刑事诉讼庭审程序、证据展示等方面应予改革完善。     

浅议量刑建议制度实施过程中存在的问题及对策

检察机关享有量刑建议权是国际司法界一种较为普遍的现象，无论是英美法系国家还是大陆法系国家都存在检察官行使量刑建议权的事实，随着我国司法体制改革的深入推进，量刑问题越来越受到社会各界广泛的关注，与量刑监督息息相关的量刑建议制度也就应运而生，各地检察机关相继开始探索和试点量刑建议制度，2010年10月1日起实施的两高三部会签的《关于规范量刑程序若干问题的意见（试行）》更使得检察机关的量刑建议权作为量刑规范化改革的重要内容得以进一步明确。本文以此为契机，结合密云县检察院实施量刑建议制度的实际情况，浅议量刑建议制度实施过程中存在的问题和对策，以期能使其朝着更加合理化、规范化的进程迈进。     

论量刑建议

作为近年来量刑程序改革的有机组成部分,量刑建议制度的兴起有着规范刑事法官自由裁量权的考虑,属于检察机关公诉权的必要延伸;量刑建议主要属于法院量刑裁判的参考和依据,     

建立量刑建议制度的思考

近年来，检察机关在公诉活动中引入量刑建议制度的改革成了理论界研究的对象。在司法实践中，四川省什邡市检察院、浙江省瑞安市检察院等也进行了量刑建议的试点，并取得了较好的效果。什么是量刑建议呢?一般来说，是指公诉人代表检察机关出庭支持公诉活动中，就被告人应当判处的具体刑罚，包括刑种、刑度、罚金数额、执行方法等．向法院提出的要求。从国外立法来看，检察机关提出具体的量刑建议是大多数国家的检察制度所接受的。英美法系国家和大陆法系国家由于法律制度和法律传统不同，它们的量刑建议制度也各具特色。在普通程序中，英美法国家的检察官一般不就量刑问题向法庭提出建议，他们一般只提请法官注意适当的量刑原则，而大陆法国家检察官的量刑建议是非常确定而突出的。我国是传统的大陆法系国家，在刑事审判程序中建立量刑建议制度无疑符合我国的法律传统。     

量刑方法和程序的合理性规制

量刑方法和程序的规范,不仅关系到被告人、被害人的合法权益能否得到有效保障,更关系到司法权威和司法公正能否得以实现。据此,本文从量刑不规范的原因、量刑方法的合理性探索、量刑程序的构建模式三个方面对于量刑体制的规范化这个问题加以探索,以期对我国量刑制度的改革有所裨益。     

论当前检察机关量刑建议制度的构建

量刑建议是检察机关公诉活动中引入的一项改革制度，近几年在各基层检察院也展开了试点，取得了一定的成果。本文结合我国检察系统试行量刑建议的进展情况，分析了量刑建议制度在我国建立的现实必要性和理论可行性。     

Taking the Law Into Our Own Hands: Structured Sentencing, Fear of Violence, and Citizen Initiatives in Washington State

This paper examines the impact of citizen initiatives on Washington State's system of structured sentencing. Criminal justice sentencing guidelines were implemented in Washington's juvenile court system in 1978 and in its adult felony courts in 1984. In the twenty years since, both systems have experienced significant changes, many of which impact judicial and administrative discretion. Early modifications to the guidelines were driven by legislative and administrative concerns (budgeting, prison population management). More recent changes have been driven by citizen initiatives fostered as a response to public fear of crime and violence. Increasingly, the public has rejected the advice and management of adult sentencing guidelines by criminal justice professionals, and taken a direct hand through the initiative process in setting the limits of judicial and administrative discretion. As a result, structured sentencing has become more complicated and less internally consistent. It remains unclear whether this is the inevitable price of growth in single issue politics and more direct public involvement in the determination of sentencing policy     

罪刑均衡的司法考察

司法中的罪刑均衡原则通过责任要素的介入将报应主义下的罪刑均衡与目的主义下的刑罚个别化原则结合起来 ,表现为责刑均衡 ,实现了量刑原则由一元向二元的转变。在罪刑均衡原则的实践过程中 ,定罪与量刑是两个密切相关的范畴。准确定罪始终是公正量刑的前提 ,但量刑对定罪亦有不可忽视的反作用。当前 ,我国司法实践中存在着量刑趋重与量刑偏差较大等问题 ,制约着罪刑均衡原则的充分实现。对量刑偏差问题 ,比较现实的解决方案是将各地量刑经验汇总至最高人民法院 ,在学者的参与下确立起个罪的量刑基准 ,并逐步建立起适度的遵循先例制度 ,以实现量刑的统一。至于量刑趋重问题 ,它是我国刑法文化形态的外在表现 ,难以在短期内得到改观 ,但司法依旧可以有所作为。     

Effects of Reducing Judicial Sentencing Discretion

This article uses a nationwide sample of state criminal cases to show the effects of reducing judicial sentencing discretion on disparities across rural-urban, southern-northern, black-white, and poor-nonpoor defendants. Judicial sentencing discretion is defined as the ratio between (1) the range in years within which a judge is allowed to sentence, and (2) the minimum number of years the judge must give when there is no probation. The data do indicate specific differences in sentencing between states of high judicial discretion and those of low judicial discretion, and the relationship of these disparities to discrimination is discussed.     

The Evolution of the Determinate Ideal of Sentencing: An Illinois Case Study

The past two decades have witnessed enormous changes in state sentencing structures. While many of the fundamental tenets of the determinate sentencing reform movement have changed since the 1970s, one bedrock principle has remained constant: the belief that the sentencing power of post-conviction administrators must be curbed. Yet, in many jurisdictions, the goal of the reform movement has been frustrated as sentencing discretion has merely shifted from parole boards to prison officials. This article presents a case study from Illinois to illustrate how institutions' adaptive responses to externally imposed reforms can enlarge the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of public policy.     

规制量刑权的路径探析

量刑权属于德沃金言下的弱自由裁量权，具有实现个案事实与刑法规范无缝对接、彰显社会正义与保障人权的价值。量刑虽是一项具有浓郁能动司法色彩的活动，但量刑权的行使却不能简单地基于正当、合理的名义。而是首先应遵循一套实体规则，这个实体规则以责任刑法为价值基础，背靠法律人经验，思维步骤符合认知规律且历经实践检验；同时为确保实体规则得以一体遵循，还须设置和运行量刑程序，最终促使法官判罚说理，提高司法信度和效度。     

Parole: How it is working

This paper presents some relevant information on parole and on several determinate sentencing proposals. Guidelines formulated by the United States Parole Commission demonstrate that release decisions can be structured to (1) enhance equity, (2) facilitate the explanation for decision variance, and (3) expose decision policy to public evaluation and debate. Empirically, parolees have a higher success rate or lower proportion of new convictions than those released in other ways. In contrast, the determinate sentencing proposals merely displace discretion to other areas of the criminal justice system where it is less visible and, hence, less subject to control.     

Legal Responses and Sentencing in Murder Cases – A Comparison of Law and Judicial Reactions in India and Germany

While there are huge cultural, social and socio-legal differences between India and Germany, the sentencing laws of the two countries show a couple of similarities. In India and Germany alike, the substantive law makes only little specifications for the sentencing process. There are no sub-statutory sentencing guidelines, within the range provided by the penal codes the courts have a wide discretion in the sentencing process. It is, however, interesting to see that the courts exercise their discretion in similar ways which can specifically be observed in murder cases. The article describes the legal framework which is applicable in murder cases in India and Germany and compares the judicial decisions in selected cases: hold-up murder, sexually motivated murder, domestic violence killings and honor killings. The comparison gives evidence of the communicative function of punishment. After a serious crime like murder the public – typically well informed by the media, agitated and highly troubled – will in both countries only be settled by a judgment considered as fair, just and proportionate. Peace under the law and internal security, however, do not seem to be dependent on specific forms of punishment. Capital punishment and life imprisonment appear as penalties which may be necessary reactions to murder in a given cultural context, but which are not indispensable to a criminal justice system.     

量刑规范化问题研究——以西安市碑林区人民法院为例

量刑规范化改革是党中央确定的重大司法改革项目,也是人民法院＂三五改革纲要＂的重要内容。量刑规范化问题的研究,对于规范司法行为,统一法律适用标准,促进社会公平正义,提高人民法院公信力,树立司法权威都具有重大意义。量刑规范化就是要进一步规范法官审理刑事案件的刑罚裁量权,将量刑纳入法庭审理程序,增强量刑的公开性与透明度,统一法律适用标准,更好地贯彻落实宽严相济的刑事政策。     

论定罪量刑的社会学模式

现行刑事立法赋予法官享有一定的定罪量刑自由裁量权,该自由裁量权受诸多案件社会结构因素影响,案件社会结构因素影响定罪量刑的过程及其表现出的样式就是定罪量刑社会学模式。定罪量刑的社会学模式以案件社会学理论为参照,并基本被实证研究所证实。由于同性质的具体案件的社会结构不同或同一案件在不同诉讼阶段的社会结构不同,法官受其影响程度也不同,定罪量刑不公正现象由此而生。实现公正定罪量刑的关键在于避免定罪量刑社会学模式发生作用。