【作者】 张国轩；

【导师】 陈光中；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 论文包括绪论和十章,涉及量刑建议的界定、影响量刑建议的主要问题、开展量刑建议的依据、量刑建议的试点情况分析、量刑建议的原则和条件、量刑建议的提出、出庭支持和抗诉救济等。开展量刑建议,是全面、充分履行控诉职责的要求,可以促进法院统一量刑标准,可以充分保障当事人的权益,可以减少检察机关不必要的抗诉。当前在实践中开展量刑建议存在许多障碍,需要对其进行全面的分析和总结。在对量刑建议的研究上应当坚持理论和实践的结合;坚持应然和实然的结合,以实然为基础,以应然为重点,从量刑建议的立法完善和发展趋势上探讨量刑建议在立法上的法定化,在实践上的全面化,在实行上的可操作化;坚持刑事一体化,从程序法关于诉讼结构和程序的相关理论来探讨量刑建议的一般性问题和程序性问题,从实体法关于刑种、刑度、刑罚裁量的原则和方法上来揭示量刑建议的提出条件,从实体和程序的结合探讨量刑建议的原则等。一、关于量刑建议的界定量刑建议与刑罚、刑罚权、求刑权等概念有关,刑罚是指对罪犯适用的最严厉的强制方法;刑罚权是指国家对罪犯实施刑罚惩罚的权力,包括制刑权、求刑权(起诉权)、量刑权、行刑权;求刑权是指对犯罪行为提起刑事诉讼的权力。目前理论界关于量刑建议的定义大致有要求说、意见(建议)说、诉讼活动说、广义狭义说、权力(利)说、法律制度说等。笔者认为,量刑建议是指检察机关在刑事诉讼法活动中,在对被告人的犯罪事实进行充分审查和指控的基础上,依法对其应当判处的刑种、刑期、附加刑以及刑罚执行方式向人民法院提出明确、具体建议的一种诉讼活动。二、当前影响量刑建议的主要问题当前影响量刑建议的主要问题包括检察官、法官、被告人方的不正确观念,《刑事诉讼法》对量刑建议缺乏明确规定,《刑法》对刑种、刑罚幅度及其裁量的规定操作性不强,司法实践对同类案件的处罚差异较大等。三、国外量刑建议比较研究两大法系国家普遍实行量刑建议制度,大陆法系国家通常以刑事诉讼法的明确规定或以检察官的角色和任务作为检察官提出量刑建议的法律依据。英美法系国家尤其美国通常以判例法作为检察官提出量刑建议的法律根据;多数情况下检察官可以提出具体的量刑建议,少数情况检察官只能提出概括的量刑建议;原则上量刑建议对于法院没有当然的约束力;我国现阶段可以直接借鉴的是大陆法系国家的量刑建议制度,包括其辩诉交易制度,而英美法系的量刑听证制度也可以参考。四、量刑建议的依据目前在我国现行法律中虽然没有明确规定检察机关的量刑建议,但是在宪法、刑事诉讼法、检察官法、人民检察院组织法、人民法院组织法等相关法律中应当包含对量刑建议的支持。同时开展量刑建议的法理依据包括法律监督理论、诉讼结构理论、公诉理论、罪刑关系理论、刑罚权理论等。中央司法体制改革要求将量刑纳入庭审程序和规范量刑的自由裁量权,检察机关近年的公诉改革都有开展量刑建议的内容,人民法院的司法改革也以规范自由裁量权和将量刑纳入法庭审理程序为重要任务。五、量刑建议的试点目前全国有十余个省市区检察机关正在开展量刑建议的试点,但涉及的案件范围有所不同。总体来看试点的时间长、范围广,运作比较规范,得到了法院的认可和配合,量刑建议的采纳率普遍较高,提高了当庭宣判率,减少了被告人的上诉率等。六、量刑建议的原则量刑建议的原则,是指指导和约束检察机关开展量刑建议的准则。可以从提出量刑的依据、量刑建议的价值追求、职责定位、效果检验等方面将量刑建议原则确定为四个:第一,依法提出原则。必须依照刑法规定的基本原则和法定刑及其适用标准提出量刑建议。第二,客观公正原则。包括实体公正、程序公正、控辩对等、控审分离等。第三,履行职责与尊重法院裁判和保护当事人权益相结合原则。在提出量刑建议时,履行法律职责、尊重法院裁判、保护当事人权益是三位一体的关系。第四,坚持法律效果和社会效果相统一原则。在坚持法律标准、维护法律权威和尊严的前提下,从社会的现实情况和要求来检验量刑建议的效果,做到法律效果和社会效果的有机统一。七、量刑建议的条件量刑建议的条件,又可以称为量刑建议的规格、标准。它包括:第一,事实清楚。第二,内容明确。不能跨刑种提出量刑建议;不能在整个量刑幅度内提出量刑建议;以绝对明确具体的建议为主、以相对明确具体的建议为辅。应当(可以)提出绝对明确、具体的量刑建议的情形包括:对适用管制、拘役、部分有期徒刑、无期徒刑、死刑的建议应当明确、具体;对适用剥夺政治权利终身、没收个人全部财产、驱逐出境、免除处罚、缓刑的建议应当明确、具体。可以提出相对明确、具体的量刑建议的情形包括:有期徒刑的刑期在2年以上(不含2年)的情形,对罚金数额的建议可以根据案情区别对待,对没收部分财产刑数额无具体规定,提出量刑建议就可以根据案情提出一定的幅度。第三,理由充分。第四,形式规范。事实清楚是前提条件,内容明确是实质条件,理由充分是说理条件,形式规范是形式条件,四个条件共同形成一个整体,缺一不可。八、量刑建议的提出提出量刑建议的主体是检察机关或者公诉机关,不宜由承办人、主诉检察官为主提出。提出的时机可以实行在起诉时提出量刑建议为主,在出庭支持公诉时提出为补充的方式。承办人提出量刑的提议后,报公诉部门讨论和论证,形成多数意见。当案件重大、复杂,应当层报审批。在开庭之前和在法庭审理的过程中,可以对量刑建议进行修改和补充。量刑建议书是关于量刑建议的专门性工作文书,不属于法律文书,量刑建议书的制作格式应当规范,并随同起诉书、案卷一并移送人民法院审查。九、出庭支持量刑建议根据我国目前司法的现状,不宜在庭审中设置独立的量刑程序,比较可行的方案是将目前的法庭辩论分为定罪辩论和量刑辩论两个阶段、程序,即设立量刑辩论程序,根据法庭调查的结果,在对被告人是否定罪和如何定罪进行充分辩论的基础上,在审判长的主持下,由公诉人向法庭提出对被告人是否判刑和如何判刑的建议,被告人及其辩护人对该量刑建议充分辩护,被害人可以对该量刑建议提出异议,量刑辩论的结果对法庭裁量刑罚产生直接影响。量刑建议在经过了法庭调查和法庭辩论之后,法院应当对有理有据的建议采取积极采纳的评议方式。检察长可以在列席审判委员会时进一步表明检察机关的量刑态度,说服和监督法院公正量刑。在简易程序中,检察机关也可以提出量刑建议。十、量刑建议的救济抗诉和监督死刑复核程序,都应当属于量刑建议的救济程序。检察机关对人民法院第一审判决提出的抗诉既涉及定罪也涉及量刑。对一审量刑错误提出抗诉的情形包括量刑畸轻的抗诉、量刑畸重的抗诉、判决无罪和免除刑罚处罚的抗诉。而对没有抗诉的二审上诉案件,如果量刑畸重的可以直接提出改判刑罚的建议,对量刑畸轻的不能直接提出改变原判刑罚的建议。对人民法院生效裁判量刑畸轻畸重的案件,检察机关也可以提出抗诉再审。检察机关参与死刑复核,对于依法应当核准死刑的案件,监督法院依法核准;对于不应当核准的死刑案件,依法提出改判的建议。结语——量刑建议的发展趋势从严格的意义上讲,由于法律并没有明确规定量刑建议,就不存在量刑建议的法律制度。因此,在完善刑事诉讼法时,应当明确规定检察机关的量刑建议。同时其规定在操作上应当具有明确性、具体性。更多还原

【Abstract】 The thesis has preface and 10 chapters, discussing the definition of penalty measurement advice, main issues involved, legal basis, the pilot program, the principle and application conditions, the process of how penalty measurement advice is proposed, advice explanation in the court and protest remedy.Penalty measurement advice helps procuratorate office to better perform their functions, and also helps the court to adopt a unified penalty measurement standard, consequently favorable to guaranteeing the rights and interests of the parties concerned, and reducing unnecessary protest from the procuratorate office. On studying penalty measurement advice, we should consider both theory and practice, both‘should to be done’and‘can be done in reality’, and should insist on Criminal Integration ideology.I. The definition of penalty measurement advicePenalty measurement advice relates to penalty, power of imposing penalty, right of sentence recommendation. Penalty is the most severe compulsory measure against the offenders. Power of imposing penalty includes the power of creating penalty, the right to sue, the power of penalty measurement, and the power of penalty implementation. Currently, many theories are explaining the definition of penalty measurement advice. Some considers penalty measurement advice as a requirement, some considers it only as a suggestion, some considers it as a suit action, some considers it as a power (right), and some considers it as a legal system. Some are explaining it from a broad perspective, others from narrow perspective. The author thinks that the penalty measurement advice is the activity that the procuratorate office, on the basis of full investigation and accusation on the crime of the defendant, proposes detailed and clear suggestions to the court on what penalty shall be charged, the term of the penalty, additional penalty, and also the implementation thereof.II. Main issues involvedCurrently, main issues influencing penalty measurement advice include improper views of procuratorate office, court judge, and the defendants; rather vague regulations on penalty measurement advice in Criminal Procedure Law; inapplicable regulations of the Criminal Law on the sentence type, penalty extent, and measurement thereof; inconsistency of judicial agencies in handling similar cases.III. The comparative study on penalty measurement advice in foreign countriesBoth the civil law countries and common law countries have adopted penalty measurement advice system. In civil law country, procurators are proposing penalty measurement advice in accordance with clear regulations of Criminal Law or their role as procurators. In common law countries, especially U.S., the procurators are proposing penalty measurement in accordance with the precedent. Under most circumstances, procurators propose detailed penalty measurement advice with few exceptions in individual cases when they are proposing only general advice. In principle, the penalty measurement advisement is not binding for the court. In China, we can the directly borrow penalty measurement advice system of civil law countries including their plea bargaining system and refer to hearing system of common law countries.IV. Legal basis of penalty measurement advisementThere are no clear regulations on penalty measurement advice in current laws. However, in author’s view, Constitution, Criminal Procedure Law, Procurators’Law, The People’s Procuratorate Organization law, and People’s Court Organization Law are supportive to the penalty measurement advice. The law theory basis for penalty measurement advice include law supervision theory, action structure theory, public suit theory, crime-penalty relation theory and the theory of the power for imposing penalty. The central judicial system reform is requesting to consider penalty measurement as one of discretion in court process and penalty measurement standardization. In recent years, the procuratorate’s reform also includes penalty measurement advice. In the court reform, standardizing discretion and measuring penalty in the court process is top priority.V. The pilot program of penalty measurement advice Currently, dozens of provincial and municipal procuratorate offices are conducting penalty measurement advice pilot program when handling different cases. In general, the pilot program has been pursued for long time with wide application scope. The operation is rather standardized, and is well recognized and cooperated by the courts. Most penalty measurement advice is adopted by the court. Thus more cases are sentenced on the spot and fewer cases are being appealed.VI. Principles of penalty measurement advice The principles will guide the procurators to properly propose penalty measurement advice. In accordance with legal basis, values to be attained, due responsibilities and role and effects evaluation, the principles include: 1. The advice shall be proposed in accordance with the Criminal law, including the basic principles, statutory penalties as well as their application conditions. 2. The principle of justice and fairness, including substantial justice, procedure justice, and fair debating, separation of accusation and sentence. 3. The principle of integrating responsibilities performance,the respect for court verdict and protecting rights and interests of the parties concerned. 4. The principle of insisting both legal effect and social effect.VII. the requirement for penalty measurement advice1. The advice shall contain clear fact explanation. 2. The advice shall contain detailed and clear penalty measurement proposal. The advice shall not refer to other type of criminal penalty and it shall not cover whole penalty extent. The advice shall be detailed and clear with only few exceptions. When imposing public surveillance, criminal detention and some fixed-term imprisonment, life imprisonment and death penalty, deprivation of political rights for the whole life, confiscation of personal whole asset, being driven out of territory, exemption form penalty, and reprieve, the procurators shall definitely propose detailed and clear advice. When imposing fixed term imprisonment for less than 2 years (2 years not included), criminal fine, some asset confiscation, the procurators could propose extent of penalty instead of definite penalty. 3. The advice shall be full justified. 4. The advice shall be in standard form. These 4 conditions are interacted and integrated into one. VIII. how procurators propose adviceThe subject is procuratorate office instead of individual. The advice can be proposed when suit action just begins and can be supplemented in the court process. Inside procuratorate office, the individual may provide proposal for discussion, and decision will be finally made by majority vote. If the case is complicated with wide influence, the advice shall be reported to the superior agency. Before and during the court process, the advice can be amended and supplemented. The penalty measurement advice is a working document exclusively for advice, rather a legal document. The proposal shall adopt unified and standardized form and be submitted to the court together with case file.VIIII. Suggestions on court actionIn accordance with the quo status, independent penalty measurement procedure is not a good option. The feasible program is to cut court debate into two, the one to convict the offenders, and the one to measure penalty. In accordance with the result of court investigation, the procurators will, on the basis of full debate on what crime will be convicted against the defendant, under the presidency of the judge, propose their advice on whether penalty shall be charged and how to charge penalty. The defendant and his lawyer can propose different opinions. The debating result will directly influence the final decision.The penalty measurement advice will be actively referred to by the court. When the judicial commission of the court discusses complicated cases, the procurator may take presence to further explain their penalty measurement advice.In simple procedure, the procurator may also propose penalty measurement advice. VV. The remedyThe remedy procedure includes protest and death penalty review. In the first-instance trial, the protest of procurator propose advise on both conviction and penalty measurement. The protest against first-trial includes the one against unreasonably too heavy or too light penalty, against no-crime sentence and punishment exemption decision. The procurators may also protest against death penalty. For second-trial case without appealing, if the penalty is too heavy, the procurators could suggest abandoning original decision. While if the penalty is too light, the procurators could not directly propose to abandon original one. For those effective court decisions, the procurators could initiate re-adjudication to protest. And the procurators shall also supervise the death penalty review of the court. In some cases when the death penalty shall not be adopted, the procurators can propose to have it changed.Conclusion-development trend on penalty measurement advice Strictly speaking, due to few regulations on penalty measurement advisement, there is no corresponding legal regime. Thus, while we are improving criminal procedure law, clear and applicable regulations on penalty measurement advice shall be included.更多还原