论建立我国独立的量刑程序

On the Setting up Independent Sentencing Process for Our County

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

李哲

导师：

冯涛

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

量刑程序;独立化改革;混合模式;量刑证据规则;改革思路;制度构想

摘要：

量刑程序就是在解决被告人定罪问题之后,由司法机关在诉讼当事人的有效参与下,解决被告人量刑问题所应当遵循的程序。作为与定罪程序并列的刑事审判环节之一,量刑程序是实现量刑公正的程序进路。只有在公开、平等的审判环境下,让诉讼参与人都能有效地参与量刑并影响法官心证,得出的量刑结论才是符合量刑正义要求的,也才能为当事人所信服。相反,即使定罪准确、量刑适当,由于当事人无法亲身感知量刑结论的产生过程、无法了解量刑结论的决定依据和理由,也难免会对法官裁判的公正性产生怀疑。 而在我国,有关量刑程序的立法还几乎是一片空白,所谓“法庭审理”主要是解决被告人定罪的问题,量刑则成为定罪的附庸。司法实践中,也没有专门的诉讼阶段和程序来解决量刑问题,不仅无法体现司法的公开、公正等特性,而且致使在量刑过程中产生了一些问题。笔者试图从程序法完善的角度入手,就如何实现量刑正义提出自己的设想,以期能对我国未来量刑程序的改革有所裨益。 本文正文部分共分四章,具体内容如下: 第一章为我国量刑程序的现状描述。本章分为两个部分,第一部分从我国的立法层面介绍我国量刑程序的现状。我国实际上并不存在真正意义上的量刑程序;目前对我国量刑程序的立法认识,主要都是从定罪程序的立法中推出来的。第二部分则从司法现状的角度阐述各方当事人在量刑程序各阶段的态度和作用。由于法院掌控着对被告人进行定罪与量刑的权力,因而在对被告人的定罪审理中附带解决量刑问题就成为理想选择;检察机关也就相应地集中全力进行“指控罪名成立”的公诉活动;辩护人虽然希望能在量刑问题上发挥积极作用,却无法真正就量刑问题与控诉方展开辩论。 第二章为我国目前量刑阶段诸多问题的总结和产生原因的分析。本章分为两部分,第一部分主要总结我国现阶段量刑程序存在的问题。这些问题包括:定罪量刑合一模式所造成的诉讼逻辑悖论、缺乏程序制约的法官自由裁量权过大、缺乏量刑前调查报告制度导致难以做到罪责刑相适应、控辩双方的量刑参与不够所导致的我国对抗式庭审方式无法有效发挥其作用、判决书量刑说理不足所造成的社会公众的不信任等问题:笔者认为,量刑程序的缺失是根本原因,而控辩双方参与量刑不足则是最直接的原因。第二部分是分析我国量刑阶段存在问题的产生原因。首先是“重定罪、轻量刑”等司法观念对刑事审判程序的影响;其次是案件分流不合理、量刑证据规则缺失和对抗式庭审引入不彻底等制度内原因,对独立量刑程序设置的阻碍;最后则是我国刑事诉讼改革思路的原因,从传统职权主义诉讼模式直接过渡到吸收当事人主义合理因素的混合模式,却没有设置相应的配套措施,不得不说是立法者欠考虑的表现。 第三章为我国量刑程序的改革思路。本章分为三个部分,第一部分论述量刑程序的独立化改革是解决我国量刑阶段诸多问题的最佳选择;这是符合我国刑事诉讼改革方向和国际化趋势的,并能够真正解决我国量刑中存在的许多问题。第二部分主要介绍我国学者和司法实务部门对解决量刑问题所进行的探索;目前在山东、江苏和上海等地进行的量刑程序改革,为我国将来独立量刑程序的设置提供了宝贵的经验。第三部分则是笔者对我国量刑程序改革的方略进行阐释;认为我国量刑程序的改革应当采用渐进式改革的方式,通过逐步完善量刑说理制度、量刑证据规则和案件分流制度这三个步骤,为独立量刑程序的设置奠定基础。 第四章为笔者对我国未来的独立量刑程序的制度设想。本章分为三个部分,第一部分是从整体上对我国未来的量刑程序做一个宏观的程序性设计;按照量刑程序的顺序,分为量刑审判前、量刑庭审、量刑评议和裁判、量刑救济等四个阶段。第二部分,则是我国量刑程序应当坚持的指导性原则:程序独立原则,公正优先、兼顾效率原则,有效参与原则,控辩对抗与居中裁判原则;第三部分则是从微观角度,对我国未来量刑程序的完善配置必要的措施:公诉方量刑建议制度、辩护方量刑答辩制度和中立方量刑前调查报告制度。

学科：

诉讼法学

提交日期：

2018-01-11

引用参考：

李哲. 论建立我国独立的量刑程序[D]. 西南政法大学,2009.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论建立我国独立的量刑程序
  • dc.title
  • On the Setting up Independent Sentencing Process for Our County
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20060301060619
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 李哲
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2009
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 冯涛
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 量刑程序;;独立化改革;;混合模式;;量刑证据规则;;改革思路;;制度构想
  • dc.subject
  • sentencing procedures;;independents reform;; mixed mode;; sentencing rules of evidence;;reform designing;; system concept
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 量刑程序就是在解决被告人定罪问题之后,由司法机关在诉讼当事人的有效参与下,解决被告人量刑问题所应当遵循的程序。作为与定罪程序并列的刑事审判环节之一,量刑程序是实现量刑公正的程序进路。只有在公开、平等的审判环境下,让诉讼参与人都能有效地参与量刑并影响法官心证,得出的量刑结论才是符合量刑正义要求的,也才能为当事人所信服。相反,即使定罪准确、量刑适当,由于当事人无法亲身感知量刑结论的产生过程、无法了解量刑结论的决定依据和理由,也难免会对法官裁判的公正性产生怀疑。 而在我国,有关量刑程序的立法还几乎是一片空白,所谓“法庭审理”主要是解决被告人定罪的问题,量刑则成为定罪的附庸。司法实践中,也没有专门的诉讼阶段和程序来解决量刑问题,不仅无法体现司法的公开、公正等特性,而且致使在量刑过程中产生了一些问题。笔者试图从程序法完善的角度入手,就如何实现量刑正义提出自己的设想,以期能对我国未来量刑程序的改革有所裨益。 本文正文部分共分四章,具体内容如下: 第一章为我国量刑程序的现状描述。本章分为两个部分,第一部分从我国的立法层面介绍我国量刑程序的现状。我国实际上并不存在真正意义上的量刑程序;目前对我国量刑程序的立法认识,主要都是从定罪程序的立法中推出来的。第二部分则从司法现状的角度阐述各方当事人在量刑程序各阶段的态度和作用。由于法院掌控着对被告人进行定罪与量刑的权力,因而在对被告人的定罪审理中附带解决量刑问题就成为理想选择;检察机关也就相应地集中全力进行“指控罪名成立”的公诉活动;辩护人虽然希望能在量刑问题上发挥积极作用,却无法真正就量刑问题与控诉方展开辩论。 第二章为我国目前量刑阶段诸多问题的总结和产生原因的分析。本章分为两部分,第一部分主要总结我国现阶段量刑程序存在的问题。这些问题包括:定罪量刑合一模式所造成的诉讼逻辑悖论、缺乏程序制约的法官自由裁量权过大、缺乏量刑前调查报告制度导致难以做到罪责刑相适应、控辩双方的量刑参与不够所导致的我国对抗式庭审方式无法有效发挥其作用、判决书量刑说理不足所造成的社会公众的不信任等问题:笔者认为,量刑程序的缺失是根本原因,而控辩双方参与量刑不足则是最直接的原因。第二部分是分析我国量刑阶段存在问题的产生原因。首先是“重定罪、轻量刑”等司法观念对刑事审判程序的影响;其次是案件分流不合理、量刑证据规则缺失和对抗式庭审引入不彻底等制度内原因,对独立量刑程序设置的阻碍;最后则是我国刑事诉讼改革思路的原因,从传统职权主义诉讼模式直接过渡到吸收当事人主义合理因素的混合模式,却没有设置相应的配套措施,不得不说是立法者欠考虑的表现。 第三章为我国量刑程序的改革思路。本章分为三个部分,第一部分论述量刑程序的独立化改革是解决我国量刑阶段诸多问题的最佳选择;这是符合我国刑事诉讼改革方向和国际化趋势的,并能够真正解决我国量刑中存在的许多问题。第二部分主要介绍我国学者和司法实务部门对解决量刑问题所进行的探索;目前在山东、江苏和上海等地进行的量刑程序改革,为我国将来独立量刑程序的设置提供了宝贵的经验。第三部分则是笔者对我国量刑程序改革的方略进行阐释;认为我国量刑程序的改革应当采用渐进式改革的方式,通过逐步完善量刑说理制度、量刑证据规则和案件分流制度这三个步骤,为独立量刑程序的设置奠定基础。 第四章为笔者对我国未来的独立量刑程序的制度设想。本章分为三个部分,第一部分是从整体上对我国未来的量刑程序做一个宏观的程序性设计;按照量刑程序的顺序,分为量刑审判前、量刑庭审、量刑评议和裁判、量刑救济等四个阶段。第二部分,则是我国量刑程序应当坚持的指导性原则:程序独立原则,公正优先、兼顾效率原则,有效参与原则,控辩对抗与居中裁判原则;第三部分则是从微观角度,对我国未来量刑程序的完善配置必要的措施:公诉方量刑建议制度、辩护方量刑答辩制度和中立方量刑前调查报告制度。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The sentence procedure is a procedure that judicial organs resolve the sentence to defendant in the effective participation of litigants after convicting defendants.As one parallel tache with the conviction,sentencing procedure should pay an important role in achieving a fair sentencing procedure.The convincing sentencing justice should be under an open,fair trial environment,using confrontation to participate sentencing and influencing the evidence in judge's heart to come to a conclusion whether the judge adopt and come with an reason.In contrast,it is inevitable to question the justice fairness for parties as they can not perceive the process of sentencing and can not acquaint themselves with the reasons on sentencing conclusion. In our country,the legislative sentencing procedures are almost blank.The so-called "court judge" is to solve the problem of a conviction but the sentence has become a vassal of conviction.With no specific stage and proceedings to address the sentencing issue in judicial practice,it can not only reflect the fairness but also cause lots of problem in sentencing process.The author attempts to show how to achieve fair justice from the aspect of improvements of procedural law,in order to benefits justice reform on sentencing procedure in our country in future. The contents of this article is divided into four chapters,They are as follows: Chapter One is a description for the Sentencing Procedure in our country,and is divided into two parts.One is to introduce status of the Sentencing Procedure from the Legislative Process.Actually we still have no such sentencing process on the true meaning.China's current understanding of the legislative sentencing procedures are mainly from the conviction in the legislative process by the presumption.The other part is to state the attitude and roles of the parties at various stages of sentencing procedures from judicial point of view.The court is in charge of the conviction and sentencing for the sentencing to defendants,therefore under the lack of status in sentencing proceedings,it is an ideal choice to resolve sentencing questions on judicial procedure.While in order to seek "the establishment of charges," the prosecution usually make a choose on the sentencing evidences. ChapterⅡis about summary and analysis on current problems and reasons in the current sentencing phase.This chapter is divided into two parts:in the first part,it is about existing issues in current sentencing process for China.These issues are:paradox of logic litigation caused by "conviction that contains the sentence" model;too much discretion for judges as lack of procedural constraints;difficulty to adapt criminal guilt as the lack of pre-sentence investigation report system;no enough punishment causing to participate in the prosecution and defense;loss of the prevalence caused by ineffectively playing its role to lack of confidence.In my opinion,the root causes are system deficiencies while insufficient participation is just the most most direct representation.The second part is the analysis on problems causing in our sentencing phase.First,it is the concept of traditional culture "re-conviction,the light sentence".Secondly,it is because of the lack of relevant rules of evidence,and the introduction of the incomplete adversarial system,ect.Finally it is as of the criminal procedure reform in our country.A direct change from traditional terms to the actual situation,while without matching system for support. It is about sentencing reform in ChapterⅢ.This chapter is divided into three parts.The first part is on the best selection to resolving problems in sentencing proceedings on the reform of the independent sentencing phase.Setting up independent sentencing is the reform trends for court instruction in various countries in the future;moreover,many problems can be solved truly based on such a reform.In the second part,it is on introduction of exploration that major scholars and judicial practice department in China to solve the problem on sentencing.Presently,the ongoing exploration on sentencing in Shandong,Jiangsu and Shanghai city makes accumulated valuable experience for our country's reform in future.The third part is about the explanation on strategy for sentencing procedure reform in China.The author think the reform on sentencing procedures in our country should be made in three steps: sentencing reasoning system,the sentencing evidence rules,"two sub-models in trial".At this point,I used the idea of gradual reform to improve and perfect our existing litigation system, and eventually establish independent sentencing process through legislation. In the chapterⅣ,the author envisage for the future of our country independent in sentencing procedures.This chapter is divided into three parts.It is a macro program design process for the sentence in our county in future in first part.And it was designed in 4 stages: the pre-trial sentencing preparation,evidence of the investigation and punishment debate in sentencing hearing phase,sentencing hearing review of the evidence and starting on sentencing relief after the sentencing magistrate.The second part is about guiding principle in our country:the principle of the independence process;justice and priority;effective participation in the prosecution;and the defense against the principles and principles with the center referee.The third part is on the micro-program from the foundation of the system to future sentencing procedures in our country.It should include at least some systems:the system of prosecution sentencing recommendation;the defense system of sentencing the respondent;the investigation report before sentencing
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.2
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2009-04-10
回到顶部