量刑调查报告制度研究

发布时间：2018-06-06 09:03

本文选题：量刑规范化 + 量刑改革　；参考：《中国青年政治学院》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：确保量刑信息得到全面、准确的调查，是量刑程序改革需要解决的重要问题。但在目前的司法实践中，对能够实现上述目的的量刑调查报告制度的研究却远落后于对量刑规范的确立、量刑建议制度的完善、量刑理由的说明等其他问题的制度设计和学术探讨，这使得量刑程序改革的目的不能完全实现。笔者在借鉴我国以往的未成年人社会调查报告经验、各地法院展开的创新实践、英美法系和大陆法系国家和地区的量刑前调查报告实践的基础上，结合我国司法实践现状，对量刑调查报告在我国的推行问题提出见解，内容涉及调查主体和内容、法律地位和具体应用等三大方面，具体包括九个问题。全文共四万余字，除结语，主体内容分为四大部分：“问题之提出”，“量刑调查报告的调查主体和内容”“量性调查报告的法律地位”和“量刑调查报告的具体应用”。第一部分，“问题之提出”分为三个层次：量刑规范化研究三十年路径、具体问题和本文写作意义。国内追求量刑规范化的努力几乎始于改革开放之初，学界三十年来努力的方向和探讨的侧重有所不同，据此大致分为三个阶段，本文对此予以介绍，明确量刑调查报告制度在量刑规范化改革中的地位、与其他制度的关联、探讨的必要性，概括量刑调查报告制度研究现状和实践中存在的问题，进而提出本文写作意义。第二部分，“量刑调查报告的调查主体和内容”分为三个层次：首先对国内外理论和实务界出现的各种称谓予以分别，提出量刑调查报告之概念及其侧重所在；其次，通过各司法实践主体之比较，提出量刑调查报告的适格调查主体——专门社区矫正机构或协议委托机构；再次对量刑调查报告的内容予以界定。第三部分，“量刑调查报告的法律地位”分为四个层次，包括量刑调查报告的法律（证据）属性、证据规则、证明责任分配、证明标准问题。该部分提出：量刑调查报告属于量刑证据，但不宜强行归类于现行七种证据种类之一；对量刑调查不应当适用传闻证据排除规则，但是应设置规则和底线以保证其真实性、保护被告人的利益；实行“谁主张、谁举证”的证明责任分配标准；主张建立层次性的证明标准。第四部分，“量刑调查报告的具体应用”具体包括启动时间、审查程序、适用范围、不准确的量刑信息的处理、保密以及存档五个具体适用的问题。即，启动时间应在法院立案后；审查程序用于保证其真实性、公平性，，应于量刑调查报告进入法庭调查之前提交给控辩双方；适用范围目前可仅适用于死刑案件和缓刑案件，待成熟时进一步扩大至所有刑事案件；应通过保障双方对调查报告的质证权利和被告人知悉调查报告内容的权利来保证量刑信息尽量准确；通过明确责任主体和建立档案系统来保证量刑调查报告的保密工作。
[Abstract]:It is an important problem for the reform of sentencing procedure to ensure that sentencing information is investigated comprehensively and accurately. However, in the current judicial practice, the study of sentencing investigation report system, which can achieve the above purpose, lags far behind the establishment of sentencing norms and the perfection of sentencing recommendation system. The system design and academic discussion of other problems, such as explanation of reasons for sentencing, make the purpose of the reform of sentencing procedure impossible to be fully realized. On the basis of the experience of social investigation report on minors in our country, the innovative practice carried out by various courts, the practice of investigation report before sentencing in Anglo-American law system and civil law system, the author combines the present situation of judicial practice in our country. This paper puts forward some opinions on the implementation of sentencing investigation report in our country, including three aspects: the subject and content of investigation, the legal status and the concrete application, including nine problems. With the exception of the conclusion, the main content is divided into four parts: "the question of the proposal", "the subject and content of the sentencing investigation report", "the legal status of the quantitative investigation report" and "the specific Application of the sentencing investigation report". The first part is divided into three levels: 30 years of research on sentencing standardization, specific problems and significance of this paper. The domestic pursuit of standardization of sentencing almost began at the beginning of reform and opening up. The orientation and emphasis of the academic circles in the past 30 years are different. According to the three stages, this paper introduces this. This paper clarifies the status of sentencing investigation report system in the reform of sentencing standardization, the connection with other systems, the necessity of discussion, summarizes the current research situation and problems in practice of sentencing investigation report system, and then puts forward the significance of writing this article. The second part, "investigation subject and content of sentencing investigation report" is divided into three levels: firstly, it puts forward the concept of sentencing investigation report and its emphasis on it. Through the comparison of the subjects of judicial practice, this paper puts forward the appropriate investigation subject of sentencing investigation report-specialized community correction institution or agreement entrustment agency; again, it defines the content of sentencing investigation report. The third part, "the legal status of sentencing investigation report" is divided into four levels, including the legal (evidence) attribute of sentencing investigation report, the rules of evidence, the distribution of burden of proof, and the standard of proof. This part puts forward: sentencing investigation report belongs to sentencing evidence, but should not be forcibly classified into one of the seven kinds of existing evidence; hearsay evidence exclusion rules should not be applied to sentencing investigation, but rules and bottom lines should be set to ensure its authenticity. To protect the interests of the defendant; to carry out the burden of proof distribution standard of "who claims, who proves"; to establish the standard of proof of hierarchy. The fourth part, "the specific application of sentencing investigation report", includes five specific problems: starting time, examining procedure, applying scope, dealing with inaccurate sentencing information, keeping secret and archiving. That is, the start time should be filed in court; the review procedure should be used to ensure its authenticity and fairness, and should be submitted to the prosecution and the defence before the sentencing investigation report enters the court investigation; and the scope of application can be applied only to death penalty cases and probation cases, When mature, it should be further expanded to all criminal cases, and the sentencing information should be guaranteed as accurately as possible by guaranteeing the right of both sides to cross-examine the investigation report and the right of the accused to know the contents of the investigation report; To ensure the confidentiality of sentencing investigation report by defining the subject of responsibility and establishing file system.
【学位授予单位】：中国青年政治学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D926.2;D924.13;D925.2

【参考文献】