【作者】 李继红；

【导师】 刘绍彬；

【作者基本信息】 兰州大学 ， 刑法学， 2013， 硕士

【摘要】 我国刑法对量刑方法的规定不够明确具体,导致不同法官因其学识、素养、经验等的不同,对相同或相似案件的量刑存在很大的差异,这也最终导致了量刑失衡问题的产生。量刑的绝对均衡是不可能实现的,但是量刑应尽可能的均衡、合理。因为量刑均衡、合理既是司法公正的要求,同样也是法律面前人人平等、罪责刑相适应原则的要求。近年来,刑法理论界和司法实务界越来越重视对量刑问题,特别是量刑基准问题的研究。但是关于量刑基准的概念、对量刑基准研究的必要性及其具体内容等很多方面尚未取得统一的认识。在此背景下,笔者认为,现阶段对量刑基准问题进行研究具有重要的理论和实践价值。笔者在大量阅读相关文献资料,研究借鉴世界其他国家和地区刑法理论界和司法实务界关于量刑基准研究和实践的先进经验的基础上,对量刑基准的相关问题进行探讨。本文分为四个部分：第一部分,汇总了刑法学界关于量刑基准概念的不同界定,对狭义的量刑基准和最高人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》(2010)中规定的基准刑进行了比较分析,最终提出应该从广义的角度对量刑基准的概念进行界定；第二部分：分析了量刑基准的内容,对我国量刑基准的刑事立法进行了研究,指出了我国量刑基准刑事立法中存在的问题；第三部分：分析在不同的刑罚目的观的指导下对量刑基准内容的不同界定,为后文量刑基准的正确界定打下基础。第四部分：对德国和日本量刑基准刑事立法进行了研究,并对其立法中量刑基准的内容进行了分析,以期对完善我国量刑基准刑事立法提供经验；第五部分：通过分析我国刑罚目的的选择、量刑原则的内容和常见的量刑情节,对我国量刑基准刑事立法完善提出相应的建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Chinese criminal law does not have a specific provision for sentencing method, so different judges will have sentencing difference for the same or similar cases owing to their difference in knowledge, attainment and experience, which will finally cause the problem of sentencing disequilibrium. Absolute equilibrium of sentencing is impossible, but sentencing should be balanced and reasonable as far as possible. Balanced and reasonable sentencing is not only the requirement of justice, but also the demand of equality before the law and principle of appropriate sentence.In recent years, criminal law theory circle and judicial practice circle have paid more and more attention to study on sentencing, including sentencing criterion. However, domestic and overseas scholars still have not gained unified comprehension about concept of sentencing criterion, necessity and specific contents of study on sentencing criterion, etc. Under such background, I consider that it has important theoretical and practical value to study sentencing criterion at this stage. Based on reading a great quantity of relevant literatures and studying the advanced experience about research and practice of sentencing criterion in criminal law theory circle and judicial practice circle of other countries and regions, this paper studied relevant issues about sentencing criterion.This paper includes five parts:Part1summarizes different definitions about concept of sentencing criterion in the academic circle of criminal law, compares narrow sentencing criterion with standard punishment stated in Guiding Opinions on Sentencing by the People’s Courts (for Trial Implementation)(2010) issued by the Supreme People’s Court, and finally raises that the concept of sentencing criterion should be defined from a generalized angle; Part2analyzes contents of sentencing criterion, studies criminal legislation of Chinese sentencing criterion, and gives problems that exist in criminal legislation of Chinese sentencing criterion; Part3analyzes different definitions about sentencing criterion under the guidance of different punishment objectives, to lay a foundation for correct definition of sentencing criterion in the following part. Part4studies German and Japanese sentencing criterion and defines the content of sentencing criterion in legislation, expecting to provide experience for improvement of criminal legislation of Chinese sentencing criterion; Part5provides corresponding suggestions for improvement of criminal legislation of Chinese sentencing criterion by analyzing selection of Chinese punishment objectives, contents of sentencing principles and common sentencing circumstances.更多还原