量刑论文-量刑程序独立化问题研究报告

1、-. z量刑论文：量刑程序的独立化问题研究【中文摘要】量刑程序的独立化是指在刑事诉讼中法官根据控辩双方的举证、质证、辩论以实现对被告人量刑的专门的庭审程序,或日“独立的量刑程序,其以被告人有罪认定为前提,实现了定罪程序和量刑程序的别离。独立的量刑程序是我国近年来探讨刑事庭审改革的热门话题之一,因为其具有诸多优位价值而被学界为改革我国庭审程序建言献策时推崇。然而独立的量刑程序并不是每个现代法治国家正在实践的法律程序,因为目前它仅适用于英美法系国家。则,构建独立的量刑程序是否能成为我国改革庭审程序而实现司法公正的必然路径呢?我国量刑程序的根本问题是什么?独立的量刑程序是否能够适应我国的司法传统?怎

2、样去构建适合我国司法实践的独立的量刑程序?这些问题一直困扰着我国的理论界和实务界,本文拟对这些问题进展探讨。本文包括五大局部：第一局部,量刑程序独立化的概述。首先对量刑程序的涵义做了阐述,分析了量刑程序在我国的缺失,接着介绍了量刑程序独立化的表现及特征,为实现量刑规化而提出量刑程序独立化的背景,最后阐述了关于量刑程序独立化的三种代表性的观点。第二局部,独立的量刑程序的价值的分析。独立的量刑程序具备四项价值：实体正义价值、程序正义价值、权利保障价值、权力制约价值。第三局部,国外量刑程序独立化模式的比拟法考察。分别介绍了两大法系国家量刑程序模式的立法及司法现状。分析认为,英美法系除了契合本国的司法

3、传统观念外,诸多的配套制度的配合实施是英美法系国家的独立的量刑程序良好运行的关键；大陆法系国家虽然并没有独立的量刑程序,但是他们都普遍在普通程序外设立了特殊的庭审程序表达独立的量刑程序的特征。而且,构建独立的量刑辩论程序是其进展量刑改革的趋势。第四局部,我国量刑程序不独立的缺陷及理论与实务困境。我国量刑程序的缺陷是：法官量刑的“隐蔽性,法官的量刑自由裁量权过大且不受制约,人风格查制度缺失,被害人的立法定位与司法中地位的矛盾性等。我国量刑程序的理论与实务困境是：没有区分证明标准,没有设定证据规则的适用围,没有区分定罪证据和量刑证据而产生的法官裁判的困境,合一的庭审模式使得辩护律师处于为难与无奈的

4、境地,正在积极试点的公诉机关量刑建议制度没有良好的实施空间等。第五局部,我国独立的量刑程序的构建。首先分析了构建我国独立的量刑程序必须考虑到的制度障碍：“案卷笔录式审判,不完善的审前分流机制,审判委员会的设置,量刑事实的匮乏和审前的普遍羁押。然后提出构建独立的量刑辩论程序要遵循的三个原则：量刑个别化原则、合作性司法原则和及时性原则,提出构建独立的量刑程序的具体设想,建议我国量刑规化活动以实体改革为主,程序改革为辅,最后着重提出使独立的量刑程序良好运行的相关配套措施。【英文摘要】The indepentence of sentencing procedure is the special tri

5、al procedure in which judges realize the sentencing of the accused according to both probatio, cross-e*amination and debate in the criminal proceedings,that is “the independent sentencing procedure. It is based on the accuseds being accused of guilty, and it realizes the separation of conviction pro

6、cedure and sentencing debate procedure.The independent sentencing procedure is one of the hot topics our country has been holding about the reform of criminal trial,because it has so many overriding values the e*perts in academic circles canonize it when they provide advice for the reform of our cri

7、minal proceedings. However, the independent sentencing debate procedure is not carried out in every morden country under the rule of law, because it is only applied in mon-law countries. So is it the inevitable way to construct independent sentencing debate procedure to realize judicial justice? Wha

8、t is the basic problem of our independent sentencing debate procedure? Can the independent sentencing debate procedure adapt to our traditional administration of justice?How to construct independent sentencing debate procedure that is suitable to our juridical practice? These questions are puzzling

9、our theory circle and pragmatic circle.This article has five parts:Part:Summerise Independence of the sentencing procedure.Firstly,e*pound the meaning and characters of the sentencing procedure,and analyse the loss of the sentencing procedure in our country.Then introduce e*hibition and character of

10、 independence on sentencing procedure,the background under which our country puts forward the independent sentencing procedure to realize the standard sentencing procedure. Finally e*pound three typical views about individual penalty procedure.Part:Analyse the capital value function of independent s

11、entencing procedure. The independent sentencing debate procedure has four capital functions:substantive justice function, procedure justice function, gurantee of human rights,and restriction of powers. Part III:Study paratively oversees program-independent procedure of Sentence debating. Present leg

12、islation and justice of sentencing program schema in England and America. In these two countries, besides traditional justice concept which conforms to thire own nation,there are many other au*iliary syetem which are the key to operating sentencing procedure well.In civil-law countries,though lackin

13、g independent sentencing procedure, they often add special court hearing to the mon procedure to embody independent sentence debating procedure. Moreover, setting independent sentence debating is the tendency to sentencing refom.Part:Analyse the deficiency and the academic and operational puzzledom

14、of the adverary procedure:the concealment in the process of weighing of punishment; the e*treme and unrestained discretionary power of judges; the absence of personality investigation system; the contridiction in the legislative and judicial postions of the victims. the academic and operational puzz

15、ledom also e*ists:the difficulties facing judges in the processof ruling caused by the confusion about proof standards, the failure to set the appiled scope of evidence rules and the confusion between conviction and sentence evidences, defense lawyers embarassing and helpless situation caused by the

16、 unitary mode of trial; the absence of great accassions where sentence proposing system of the prosecution organ can be e*ecuted, which is now in the e*perimental process.Part:The construction of the independent sentencing procedure in our country. First,the instituional handcaps in the independent

17、sentencing procedure is to be analysed:trials in the form of making records and taking depositions; the imperfect separate system before the trial; the setting of the judicial mittee system; the lack of penalty facts and universial pretrial detain. Second, three principles in the independent punishm

18、ent adversary procedure are put forward:sentence individalization, cooperative justice and limeliness. In addition,put forward to design concretely the independent sentencing procedure, this paper will propose that our country should give priority to entity reform while making procdure reform plemen

19、tary and claim that we should establish entity rules, in order to achieve a equilibrium in the measure of penalty.Finally,several corresponding measures to ensure the punishment adverary procedure functions well are emphatically provided.【关键词】量刑 量刑程序 独立的量刑程序【英文关键词】sentencing sentencing procedure ind

20、ependent sentencing procedure【目录】量刑程序的独立化问题研究摘要4-6Abstract6-7引言12-131 量刑程序独立化概述13-181.1 量刑程序的涵义131.2 量刑程序的独立化的涵义及特征13-141.3 量刑程序独立化提出的背景14-161.4 相关论说16-181.4.1 完全独立的量刑程序161.4.2 相对独立的量刑程序16-171.4.3 不独立的量刑程序17-182 独立量刑程序的价值18-222.1 实体正义价值18-192.2 程序正义价值192.3 权利保障价值19-202.4 权力制约价值20-223 国外量刑程序独立化模式的比拟法考察22-303.1 英美法系国家的量刑程序模式22-253.1.1 英国22-243.1.2 美国24-253.2 英美法系量刑程序模式的评析25-273.2.1 与定罪程序相独立的裁判程序253.2.2 被害人主体地位的实质性253.2.3 量刑事实的相异性和丰富性25-263.2.4 证明规则和证明标准在定罪和量刑中的相异性26-273.3 大陆法系的量刑程序模式27-293.3.1 德国27-283.3.2 法国283.3.3 日本28-293.4 大陆法系国家量刑程序模式的评析29-304 我国量刑程序不独立的缺陷及理论与实务