【作者】 王喆；

【导师】 闵春雷；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 量刑是刑事司法制度的重要组成部分,是刑事正义的一半工程。自2005年最高人民法院在《二五改革纲要》中提出“健全和完善相对独立的量刑程序”以来,量刑程序改革已经对促进量刑公正产生了积极的影响,但改革中仍存在不足之处,有必要对量刑程序中的理论问题进一步加以研究。笔者采用价值分析方法、比较方法、经验实证方法,从刑事一体化的视角对我国量刑程序中存在的问题及原因展开分析,并以量刑活动的诉讼化改造为主线,以量刑公正与效率的价值目标为指引,对量刑程序中刑事诉权的行使、刑罚裁量权对诉权的回应、量刑程序和证据制度对诉权与刑罚裁量权的保障等问题进行研究,以期厘出一条比较系统、完整、科学的改革思路。全文除导论外,共分6章。第1章量刑程序改革的基本问题我国量刑程序的构建应当符合量刑的实体公正、基本的程序公正以及诉讼效率的价值目标。对量刑程序的价值目标的设定,可以促使我们对现有的量刑程序规范及其运作进行反思,为改革和完善量刑程序提供指导原则和方向。量刑程序改革应当在基本的理论前提下进行,首先,就定罪与量刑的关系来看,定罪是量刑的基础,量刑是定罪的保障;其次,在量刑规范化过程中,应当将程序法路径作为改革的关键;最后,在量刑程序中应当实现诉权对刑罚裁量权的制约。第2章量刑建议量刑建议是制约刑罚裁量权、促进量刑公正的一大举措。量刑建议权作为公诉权的有机组成部分,是公权力而非私权利。量刑建议本质上具有开启量刑程序的效力,但对人民法院选择何种量刑程序模式解决量刑问题并无制约作用。量刑建议为法官量刑提供了依据和参考,虽然对量刑裁判的结果不发生强制效力,但仍会对裁决发生影响。我国量刑建议从改革实验到全面推行已经历十余年,目前仍存在主体推进动因不足、程序设置不当、配套机制不完善等问题,对此,应当正确认识量刑建议的作用与局限,扩大量刑建议适用的范围,增强量刑建议权行使的科学性,并完善相关配套措施。第3章量刑辩护量刑程序改革催生了量刑辩护这一新兴的辩护形态。量刑辩护是刑事案件的被追诉人及其辩护人反驳对被追诉人的重量刑指控,提出有利于被追诉人的量刑事实和理由,论证应当对被追诉人从轻、减轻或免除处罚的量刑主张,以保障被追诉人合法权益的诉讼活动。量刑辩护在量刑程序中具有重要价值,它能够促进被追诉方行使诉权,合理构造量刑程序,增强司法的权威和信服力。目前在我国开展量刑辩护仍存在障碍,考虑到我国刑事辩护制度本身的缺陷以及我国量刑程序改革的现实情况,一方面,应当充分认识量刑辩护的重要性,从观念上解决量刑辩护开展的障碍,另一方面要完善指定辩护制度并保障辩护权的有效实现,从制度上为量刑辩护开展创造有利条件。第4章量刑程序的模式我国量刑程序的模式选择是量刑程序设计的关键。英美法系国家多采用定罪与量刑分离程序模式,而大陆法系多采用定罪与量刑合一程序模式,两种程序模式各有利弊。我国量刑程序的模式选择既应当符合量刑程序的价值目标,又应当与我国现有诉讼机制契合;既应当实现对量刑公正的保障,又应当考虑诉讼效率的要求,此外,还应当满足特殊案件对量刑程序的要求。考虑上述因素,我国应当在死刑案件与被告人不认罪案件中,建立完全独立的量刑程序;对其他案件,则考虑建立相对独立的量刑程序。在量刑程序中,被害人作为刑事诉讼的当事人,应当参与量刑程序并发表量刑意见。量刑过程的公开和透明是量刑程序改革的重要目标,为此,应改变目前判决书量刑说理薄弱的现状,判决书应当对诉讼各方的量刑主张加以回应,并实现对量刑结论的说理。第5章量刑证据与证明量刑证据是刑罚裁量的基础。与定罪证据相比,量刑证据范围更加广泛,既包括与犯罪事实有关的证据,也包括与犯罪事实无关、但却影响量刑的罪前、罪后证据。量刑程序中的证据规则具有特殊性,对量刑证据的取证要注重全面性与合法性,举证应当注重相关性,而质证应遵循有限性原则。量刑证明与定罪证明也应有所区别,量刑程序的证明对象应当是控诉方、被害人、辩护方在量刑建议或量刑意见中提出的量刑主张,量刑程序中证明责任的分配原则为“谁主张、谁举证”,在对量刑主张进行证明时,控辩双方应采用优势证据的标准。第6章死刑案件量刑程序保障量刑程序的独立性是当今世界保留死刑的国家慎重对待死刑的一个重要途径。我国死刑案件的审判应当实现定罪与量刑程序的分离。司法实践中,死刑案件定罪程序的开启可以结合我国死刑复核的相关规定和司法实践经验来确定,死刑案件量刑程序的设计应当体现程序正义的理念,实现量刑的个别化与死刑适用的有限性。为实现对死刑案件被告人的程序保护,应借鉴美国有效辩护制度,通过一系列制度设计,强化我国死刑案件中被告人辩护权的有效行使。更多还原

【Abstract】 Sentencing is an important part of criminal judicial system that affects the criminal justice. Since the Supreme Court in the "twenty-five Reform Program" put forward that "perfect the relatively independent sentencing procedure" at 2005, the sentencing procedural reform has promoted sentencing substantive justice actively. But the reform is still inadequate, and it is necessary to study theoretical issues of the sentencing procedure further. The article uses the value-analysis method, comparison method and empirical method to analyze the problems and the reasons of the criminal sentencing procedure in china from the criminal integrating perspective. In this paper, the main line is procedural transformation of the sentencing procedure, and the value objective of sentencing justice and efficiency is the guidance on sentencing procedure construction. The thesis studies the operation of the right to appeal and discretion in response to the right to appeal and the protection which is from sentencing procedure and evidence to the right to appeal and discretion. It is to sort out a more systematic, complete, and scientific reformatory idea. The main body consists of six chapters in addition to introductory text.The first chapter is on "the basic problems of sentencing procedural reform." The construction of sentencing procedure in china should be consistent of the substantive justice, basic procedural justice and effectiveness. The value target can promote our reflection on the existing specification and operation of the sentencing procedure, and provide guidance and direction to reform and improve sentencing procedure. Sentencing procedural reform should be carried out under the basic premise of the theory. First, looking at the relationship between the conviction and sentencing, conviction is the basis for sentencing, sentencing is the protection of conviction; Secondly, in the standardization of sentencing procedure, the path of procedural law should be the key to the reform, and attach equal importance to the reform of substantive law and procedural law; Finally, in the sentencing procedure the right to appeal should constraint the penalty discretion.The second chapter is on "the sentencing recommendation." It is significant progress for promoting sentencing justice and restricting the penalty discretion that the prosecution puts forward sentencing recommendation. The sentencing recommendation is an integral part of prosecutorial power, and it is a public authority rather than private rights. It limits the scope and extent that the sentencing recommendation impact on the discretion. The sentencing recommendation in china has gone through more than ten years from the experiment to the full implementation of the reform, and there are ideological, institutional and practical reasons that make the sentencing recommendation carry out difficultly. So we should correctly understand the roles and limitations of the sentencing recommendation, and expand the application of sentencing recommendations, and make the sentencing recommendation scientific, and improve related measures.The third chapter is on "the sentencing defense." Sentencing procedural reform gave birth to this new defensive pattern. The article first distinguishes among sentencing defense, the non-guilty defense and the misdemeanor defense. The sentencing defense is that the defense refute allegations heavier, and put out facts and reasons that is favorable to the defendants, and argument that the defendants should be on the sentence lighter to protect the legitimate rights of the defendants. Sentencing defense can promote the exercise of the right to appeal by the prosecution side and make sentencing procedure more reasonable, and strengthen the judicial authority and convincing. It identifies the significance of sentencing defense. Now there are some factors that hinder the defense sentencing carry out in china. Taking into account the defects of the criminal defense system and the reality of reform of the sentencing procedure in china, we should comprehend the importance of sentencing defense, and create conditions through improving the legal aid system and the assignment of defense to protect the right to defense counsel.The fourth chapter is on "the sentencing process model." It is the key to construct the sentencing procedure that choose sentencing procedural model in China. Common law countries use the separation model of conviction and sentencing procedure in common, while the civil law countries use the integration model of conviction and sentencing procedure, both models have pros and cons. When we choose the model of the sentencing procedure in China, we should consider not only the valuable target of the sentencing procedure but also our existing legal mechanisms, and not only the protection to the sentencing justice but also the effectiveness of the procedure. We should establish the separation model in the cases of death penalty and that the defendants plead non-guilty, and establish relatively independent model in the other cases. In addition, the article discusses the legitimacy and significance that the victims participates the sentencing process. The victims should participate in the sentencing procedure and express views on sentencing as a party to criminal procedure. It is an important goal that achieves sentencing procedure open and transparent. The sentencing verdict should change the status quo of reasoning weak, to strengthen the verdict reasoning in the sentencing procedure.The fifth chapter is on "the sentencing evidence and proof." Sentencing evidence is the basis on the sentencing judge. The sentencing evidences are extensive. They are both the evidences that relate crime fact and that have nothing to do with the crime fact. The sentencing evidence has special nature. Collecting evidence should focus on comprehensive and legitimacy, and presenting evidence should focus on relevant, but cross-examination should follow the limited principle. The proof in sentencing procedure should also be differentiated with the conviction. The object of proof should be the sentencing claims of the prosecutor, the victim and the defense. The principle of allocation of proof is "who advocates, who bears the burden of proof". The prosecution and the defense should reach the preponderance of evidence standard when they prove their views.The sixth chapter is on "the sentencing procedure in capital cases." It is an important way to restraint death penalty through the independent sentencing procedure in capital cases. We should build independence sentencing procedure in capital cases in china. In judicial practice, we should open capital convicted procedure combined with the relevant provisions of China’s death penalty review and judicial practice. The specific sentencing procedure in capital cases should reflect the concept of procedural justice and make sentencing individualized and apply death penalty limitedly. In order to protect the accused in capital cases, we should learn from effective defense system in the United States, and puts forward specific ideas about improving our defense system in capital cases ultimately.更多还原