从量刑实体规范化的实践看量刑均衡价值的实现

发布时间：2018-06-12 03:05

本文选题：量刑规范化 + 量刑实体规范化　；参考：《华东政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：量刑均衡作为量刑正义和罪刑均衡原则的应有之义,包含“质的均衡”和“量的均衡”两个方面,二者密不可分,“质的均衡”是本质,“量的均衡”是表现,“质的均衡”决定“量的均衡”,“量的均衡”能直观检验出是否实现“质的均衡”。量刑幅度设置须宽细得当,“量的均衡”要求一个国家在一定时期内,在类似案件的量刑轻重上应基本相同,避免量刑轻重悬殊,也承认适当的地区差异和适当的个案差异,从这个意义上说,量刑均衡是量刑的一种动态平衡。为避免量刑不均衡现象,更加科学有效地规范量刑,美国、德国等法治先进国家已进行了积极探索。我国的量刑规范化工作在借鉴先进国家经验基础上,经过积极酝酿与初步试点、扩大试点与积极总结,目前全面试行已逾一年。从福州市两级法院量刑规范化工作试点阶段和全面试行阶段的实践情况看,量刑规范化工作取得了一定成效。“量刑规范化”包括对量刑实体的规范和对量刑程序的规范两个方面,实体和程序的各种因素有机结合,协调一致,共同促进量刑均衡价值的实现。其中,量刑实体规范化通过对我国粗放型的量刑规定进行细化和量化,把量刑活动的依据充实得更加具体,从而对量刑均衡价值的实现产生重大影响。量刑实体规范化在实践过程中出现了一些问题,影响了量刑均衡价值的实现:“量刑基准”理论研究与量刑实体规范化实践的联系不够紧密;存在运用传统量刑方法检验规范量刑方法的实践误区;《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》的某些规定不合理,如重伤害案件的量刑起点设置偏低、对非法拘禁罪等罪名的量刑起点设置过低、累犯的调节结果在轻重不同案件中差异过大、部分常见量刑情节从轻、减轻刑罚幅度过大、欠缺对缓刑适用的相关规定等。为此,应当找准“量刑基准”与“量刑起点”的契合点,增强“量刑基准”理论研究与量刑实体规范化实践的联系;走出运用传统量刑方法检验规范量刑方法的实践误区,接纳规范量刑的新思路和新方法,并以此指导量刑活动;有针对性地完善并改进《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》相关规定,如提高重伤害案件和非法拘禁罪等罪名的量刑起点、完善《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》对“累犯”、“从犯”、“自首”、“立功”、“缓刑”等相关规定。
[Abstract]:As the due meaning of the principle of sentencing justice and balance of crime and punishment, the balance of sentencing includes two aspects: "balance of quality" and "balance of quantity", both of which are inseparable, "balance of quality" is the essence, and "balance of quantity" is the expression. The equilibrium of quality determines the equilibrium of quantity, and the equilibrium of quantity can directly test whether the equilibrium of quality can be realized. The range of sentencing should be set up in a wide and narrow manner. "balance of quantity" requires a country to have the same level of sentencing in similar cases within a certain period of time, to avoid wide disparities in sentencing, and to recognize appropriate regional differences and appropriate case differences. In this sense, sentencing balance is a dynamic balance of sentencing. In order to avoid the imbalance of sentencing and standardize sentencing more scientifically and effectively, advanced countries such as the United States and Germany have been actively explored. On the basis of drawing lessons from the experience of advanced countries, the standardization of sentencing in our country has been carried out for more than a year after active preparation and preliminary trial, and expansion of the pilot and positive summing up. Judging from the practice of the trial stage and the overall trial stage of the sentencing standardization of the two levels of courts in Fuzhou City, some achievements have been made in the standardization of sentencing. "Standardization of sentencing" includes two aspects: the standard of sentencing entity and the standard of sentencing procedure. All kinds of factors of entity and procedure combine organically and harmoniously, and jointly promote the realization of balanced value of sentencing. Among them, the standardization of sentencing entity through the refinement and quantification of the extensive sentencing provisions of our country, the basis of sentencing activities is more specific, which has a significant impact on the realization of the balanced value of sentencing. There are some problems in the practice of the standardization of sentencing entity, which affect the realization of the balanced value of sentencing: the theoretical study of "sentencing benchmark" is not closely related to the practice of standardization of sentencing entity; There are some misunderstandings in using traditional sentencing methods to test and standardize sentencing methods, and some provisions in the sentencing guidance opinion of the people's Court (trial) are unreasonable, such as the low starting point of sentencing in serious injury cases, The sentencing starting point for the crime of illegal detention is too low, the adjustment result of recidivism is too different in different cases, some common circumstances of sentencing are lighter, the range of punishment is too large, and the relevant provisions for probation are lacking. Therefore, we should find out the point of convergence between "sentencing benchmark" and "sentencing starting point", strengthen the connection between the theoretical research of "sentencing benchmark" and the standardization practice of sentencing entity, and step out of the practical misunderstanding of using traditional sentencing method to test the standard sentencing method. To accept new ideas and methods for standardizing sentencing and to guide sentencing activities; to improve and improve the relevant provisions of the sentencing guidance opinion of the people's Court (for trial implementation), For example, we should improve the starting point of sentencing for serious injury cases and crimes of illegal detention, and perfect the relevant provisions on "recidivist", "accomplice", "surrender", "meritorious service", "suspended sentence" and so on in the sentencing guidance of the people's Court.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D924.1;D926.2

【参考文献】