【作者】 仇晓敏；

【导师】 沈德咏；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本文的基本论点是量刑作为一种刑事司法行为,不仅仅是个实体问题,也是个程序问题。面对司法实践中令人担忧的量刑偏差现象,不仅应该通过刑事实体的路径予以改进,程序进路亦有其功效。笔者运用刑事一体化、比较与借鉴及构造分析等方法,对量刑公正之程序进路视角的引入、量刑中的权力(利)配置与运行、量刑程序、量刑中的证据运用以及量刑公正救济程序等问题进行了一次全面、系统、深入的分析。笔者认为,量刑中的权力(利)配置与运行是量刑公正之程序进路的核心,量刑程序是量刑公正之程序进路的载体,量刑中的证据运用是量刑公正之程序进路的关键,而量刑公正的救济程序则为量刑公正之程序进路的保障。在现实考察与前瞻思考相结合的基础上,力图构建完整的量刑公正程序进路理论。全文除导论外,共分五章,近二十二万字。量刑公正作为人们感受司法公正的形式,具有两方面的评价标准,一是罪责刑是否相适应,二是量刑是否一致。“罪责刑相适应”主要用于评价单个犯罪行为的量刑是否公正;“量刑一致”用于评价不同的犯罪人的量刑是否公正。量刑公正具有非常重要的意义,是刑事正义的重要组成部分,是保障刑罚效益的关键环节,也是保障犯罪人合法权益的必然要求。然而,量刑公正的对立面,量刑偏差却是一个全球性的难题。人们为了追求量刑公正的目标,从实体上采取了诸如量刑指南、电脑量刑和数字化量刑等多种方式,但是效果并不佳。其实,量刑不仅仅是个实体问题,更是个程序问题。从这个角度来看,量刑公正不仅包括实体公正,还包括程序公正的内容。程序是达致量刑公正目标的重要进路。量刑领域中的权力(利)的配置与运行是量刑公正之程序进路的核心。刑罚裁量权是指量刑主体在法律规定的范围内,对业已定罪的犯罪人是否判处刑罚以及判处什么刑罚予以酌情决定的权力。刑罚裁量的标准、根据以及裁量的主体是刑罚裁量权的三大要素。刑罚裁量应在报应的基础上,再根据功利的需要进行相应的调整;刑罚裁量应以事实为基础,以法律为根据,同时还要考虑刑事政策的需要;刑罚裁量应注重法官的选拔与培训,注重完善合议、陪审、级别管辖等制度,以尽量减少刑罚裁量主体因素对量刑公正可能存在的消极影响。量刑建议权,是指检察官在案件起诉时或庭审过程中,把对被告人量刑的意见,向法院表示的权利。量刑建议权虽然只是公诉人所享有的权利,不是公诉人的诉讼义务,但却是法院公正量刑的重要参考依据,是量刑公正程序进路的重要方式,具有限制抗诉和上诉的关键。我们看待量刑建议权应该采取辩证的态度,确立量刑建议权行使与否由检察官自由裁量的原则;对于实行量刑建议制度的案件,要注意配套措施的完善。量刑辩护权,是指被告人及其辩护人针对指控人的指控,向审判机关提出被告人从轻、减轻、免除刑罚的意见,以维护被告人合法权益的权利。量刑辩护权包括获悉有关量刑信息的权利、对不利的量刑信息进行质疑和质证的权利、量刑建议的权利、量刑答辩的权利等内容。量刑辩护权与量刑建议权、刑罚裁量权成为量刑领域中运行的三大主要的权力(利),并形成一个等腰三角形的权力(利)配置模式。量刑理由展示制度是连接刑罚裁量权与量刑建议权和量刑辩护权的纽带,量刑协商制度中三种权力(利)的互动关系却呈现出一定的异化。并形成一个等腰三角形的权力(利)配置模式。量刑理由展示制度是连接刑罚裁量权与量刑建议权和量刑辩护权的纽带,量刑协商制度中三种权力(利)的互动关系却呈现出一定的异化。量刑程序是量刑公正之程序进路的载体。世界范围内存在着两种量刑程序模式:一是英美法国家的独立量刑程序模式,二是大陆法系国家的混合量刑模式。我国量刑程序属于混合量刑模式。由于定罪与量刑在理念、原则、性质与任务、审理依据、审理内容以及适用证据规则上的诸多分野,这就要求将量刑程序从定罪与量刑合一的审判程序中独立出来,以体现量刑程序的独立性。根据定罪环节与量刑环节是否有时间间隔的不同,独立量刑程序分为相对独立的量刑程序和完全独立的量刑程序。我国在构建独立的量刑程序时,应该根据控辩双方是否达成量刑协议,被告人是否认罪、案件的严重程度和被告人及其辩护人的意愿等因素作不同的选择。如果控辩双方在审前已经达成量刑协议,则实行简化的量刑程序;对于被告人认罪的案件,或者案情简单、不需要特别收集量刑证据的案件,则实行相对独立的量刑程序;对于有可能判处重刑特别是死刑的案件,以及被告人及其辩护人提出希望有一定的时间间隔以准备量刑程序的案件,则应该实行完全独立的量刑程序。同时,我国在构建独立量刑程序时,还应该完善量刑前人格调查制度和量刑庭审程序。量刑中的证据运用是量刑公正之程序进路的关键。“量刑证据”是指证明量刑事实存在与否的证据。“量刑证据”概念的提出,体现了证据裁判原则的要求,体现了独立量刑程序的要求,不仅丰富了证据的分类理论,而且为证据分类研究开辟了一个新的视角。量刑程序中的待证事实包括可以与犯罪行为区分的量刑情节和处罚条件的事实;量刑程序中的免证事实,主要是指本来应由证据证明的量刑事实,由于在先前的程序或司法裁决中已经被确认而不需在量刑程序中再次予以证明的事实。在量刑程序中,量刑情节的证明责任、证明标准、证明程序与定罪程序并不相同。证明责任的分担,应该作不同的分配:附属于犯罪行为的与犯罪行为不可分的案中量刑情节,证明责任只能由控诉方承担;其他量刑情节,则应该按照“谁主张、谁举证”的原则,由控辩双方共同承担。定罪事实和量刑情节的证明标准不能笼统规定,量刑情节的证明标准在一般情况下应该低于定罪事实,但是判处死刑立即执行案件的量刑情节的证明标准应该设定的更严格一些,须达到“量刑情节清楚,证据确实充分,排除一切合理怀疑”的程度。量刑情节的证明,应该坚持存疑有利于被告人的原则。同时,量刑情节的举证程序、质证程序、认证程序也有诸多特殊之处。在量刑证据的审查认定中,需要特别注意自首、立功材料,年龄证据和品格证据等对量刑具有特殊意义的证据的审查与认定。量刑公正的救济程序是量刑公正之程序进路的保障。量刑公正之救济程序,是指在量刑过程中,有关当事人的公正量刑的要求受到侵害或得不到保障时,有权要求有关机关采取法律措施予以纠正,或者有关上级机关依职权主动予纠正的程序。量刑公正之救济程序包括量刑公正之上诉程序、量刑公正之再审程序和专门针对死刑裁决的死刑复核程序。量刑上诉理由可以分为量刑不当和量刑错误,量刑再审理由可以分为量刑错误和量刑明显不当。将对量刑不服的上诉程序和再审程序与普通的上诉程序和再审程序中作出区别,不仅是现实的需要,也是适用不同的审理方式和原则的需要。量刑公正之上诉救济和再审救济程序,除死刑案件之外,其审理范围和审理方式并不应笼统地适用我们平时所主张的全面审理原则和开庭审理方式。同时,在量刑上诉和量刑再审程序中,应该采纳上诉不加刑和再审不加刑的原则。死刑复核程序对于保障死刑适用的公正性具有非常重要的意义,在最高人民法院收回死刑核准权之际,我们应该重点把握复核死刑的标准问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 The basic proposition of this dissertation is that sentencing is not only a substantive issue but also a procedural issue in criminal justice jurisprudence.The problem of disparity in sentencing in the judicial practice should be addressed by procedural approaches as well as the substantive approaches.By applying the approaches of criminal integration,comparison,and structure analysis,the author analyses the following issues comprehensively and systematically:introduction of the procedural approach to achieve the sentencing justice,the distribution of power and right and their operation,the sentencing procedure,the evidence used in sentencing,and the remedies for sentencing.The author believes that the distribution of the power and right and their operation is the core of sentencing proceeding;the sentencing proceeding is the carrier to achieve sentencing justice;how evidence is used is the key to sentencing justice;and the remedies for sentencing justice is the guarantee of sentencing justice.Based on the examination of the reality and the prospect,this dissertation is devoted to give a complete picture of the theory on the procedural approaches to sentencing justice.This dissertation is divided into 5 chapters(excluding the Introduction part) and counts nearly 220,000 words.Part of the people’s sense of justice,sentencing justice has a two-aspect Assessment Criteria:the first is Compatibility of Crime, criminal Responsibility,and Penalty,the second is the consistentcy in sentencing.The first aspect is applied to evaluate whether the individual’s sentencing is fair,while the second is applied to evaluate whether the sentencing between different defendants is fair.Sentencing justice is so important in the sense that it is part of the criminal justice,and it guarantees the effect of penalty as well as the legitimate rights of the defendant.However,the opposite of the sentencing justice,the disparity of sentencing becomes a global problem.To realize the goal of sentencing justice,people have adopted varying methods,such as using sentencing guidelines,computer and digital instruments.However,they did not produce good effects.In fact,sentencing is a procedural issue as well as a substantive issue.From this point of view,sentencing justice is composed of both procedural justice and substantive justice.The procedure is the essential approach to achieve sentencing justice.The distribution of power and right and their operation is the core of the procedural approaches to sentencing justice.The sentencing discretion refers to the power that the penalty decider applies to decide whether to impose penalty and which penalty to impose within the law.It is composed of three elements:the standard of sentencing discretion,the justification and the penalty decider.Sentencing discretion should be based on retribution,and adjusted for the need of utilitarianism;it should be based on the fact and law,and take the criminal policies into account;it should attach importance to the promotion and training of the judges as well as the improvement on the Collegiate system,jury system and jurisdiction system,to reduce the potential negative influence on the sentencing justice brought by the decider’s factor.The right to recommend sentences refers to the right of prosecutors to express his opinion on the sentence of the defendant to the judges,which is in nature a right not a duty granted for the prosecutor.It is one of the important references for the judges to impose just penalties,methods of the procedural approaches to the sentencing justice,and has the effect to reduce the appeals and protests. We should adopt a dialectic attitude towards the right to recommend sentences,and lay down the principle that it should be applied in the discretion of the prosecutors.As for the cases that apply the sentencing recommendation,matching measures should follow up.The right to counsel for sentencing is the right entitled to the defendant and his attorney to express opinions to the judges on mitigating,reducing or exempting the penalty.It includes the right to be informed of the related sentencing information,the right to doubt and examine the unfavorable sentencing information,the right to recommend sentences and the right to plea,and etc.The right to counsel for sentencing,the right to recommend sentences and the sentencing discretion are the three primary power/right in the sentencing jurisprudence,and fall into a structure of an isosceles triangle.The system of disclosing sentencing reasons connects the sentencing discretion,right to recommend sentence and The right to counsel for sentencing.However,in the sentencing plea bargaining,the relationship among these three power/right deviates from the above form.The sentencing proceeding is the carrier to achieve sentencing justice. There are two models of sentencing proceeding:One is the independent sentencing proceeding model in common law jurisprudence,and the other is the combined sentencing proceeding model in continental countries.The model of our country belongs to the latter.As there are a lot of differences between trial and sentencing in the aspects such as rationale,principles, nature,goals,fact under examine and laws applied,it follows that the sentencing proceeding should be independent of the trial.The independent sentencing proceeding can be divided into two categories:the entirely independent sentencing proceeding and the comparatively independent sentencing proceeding.Their difference lies in whether the sentencing proceeding immediately follows the trial.The author proposes that China’s independent sentencing proceeding should offer different choices according to the following factors:whether the parties have reached a sentencing plea,whether the defendant has admitted guilty,the severity of the offense,and the inclination of the defendant and his attorney.If the prosecutor and the defendant have reached the sentence plea before sentencing,it should apply summary procedure;if the defendant admitted guilty or the case is so simple that no extra efforts on sentencing evidence should be made,it should apply the comparatively independent sentencing proceeding;for the case that is punishable by severe penalties particularly death penalty,or the defendant and his attorney asked for some time to prepare for the sentencing proceeding after the trial,it should apply the entirely independent sentencing proceeding.In the mean time,the personality investigation before the sentencing and rules of sentencing should also be improved.How evidence is used is the key to sentencing justice."Sentencing evidence" is the evidence that can be used to prove whether the sentencing fact exists or not.The conception of "sentencing evidence" reflects the requirements of the Evidence referee principle and independent sentencing proceeding.It enriches evidence categories,and gives us a new perspective for the evidence category research.The facts to be proved in sentencing proceeding includes the mitigating or aggravating evidence; The facts exempt of proof in sentencing proceeding refer mainly the facts which needn’t be proved in sentencing proceeding because they were proved in former proceeding.In sentencing proceeding,the burden of evidence,standard of proof,proof proceeding are different from the trial. Thus the burden of proof should be assigned accordingly:the burden to prove the fact that closely related to the criminal conduct or circumstances should be borne by the prosecutor;the burden to prove other related sentencing facts should be shared by the parties according to the rule of "Who advocated that who presents evidence".Standards of proof should be established separately for the facts to prove guilty and the facts used for sentencing.The standard of the latter should be lower than the former,but for the capital punishment cases,the standard of proof in sentencing should be stricter to the extent of determination without any doubt. Simultaneously,the procedure to present proof,the procedure to question proof and Authentication procedure about sentencing facts has many specialties.In Examination authentication of sentencing proof,we should pay more attentions to plots of Surrender and rendering meritorious.The remedy for sentencing justice is the guarantee of sentencing justice.When the defendant’s access to sentencing justice can not be guaranteed or has already been violated,the defendant is entitled to a right to request the related organ(or the organ supervising it) to take legal measures to correct the wrong.The remedies for sentencing justice include sentencing appeal,the proceeding for sentencing retrial,and the proceeding for review of death penalty.The reasons for sentencing appeal can be categorized into improper sentencing and mistaken sentencing.The reasons for sentencing retrial can be categorized into mistaken sentencing and obviously improper sentencing.It is the need of reality as well as the requirement to apply different modes and principles of the hearing to distinguish the proceedings of appeal and retrial for sentencing and those for conviction.Except the death penalty cases,the scope and the mode of the hearing are different between those two proceedings.In addition,the principle of "no imposing more severe penalties" also applies in sentencing appeal and sentencing retrial.The proceeding for review of death penalty is valuable in ensuring that death penalty is applied fairly. Since the Supreme Court has retained the authority to review the death penalty cases,we should reflect on the nature of proceeding for the review of death penalty and how to improve it.更多还原