量刑論文-量刑程序獨立化問題研究報告

1、-. z量刑論文：量刑程序的獨立化問題研究【中文摘要】量刑程序的獨立化是指在刑事訴訟中法官根據(jù)控辯雙方的舉證、質(zhì)證、辯論以實現(xiàn)對被告人量刑的專門的庭審程序,或日“獨立的量刑程序,其以被告人有罪認定為前提,實現(xiàn)了定罪程序和量刑程序的別離。獨立的量刑程序是我國近年來探討刑事庭審改革的熱門話題之一,因為其具有諸多優(yōu)位價值而被學(xué)界為改革我國庭審程序建言獻策時推崇。然而獨立的量刑程序并不是每個現(xiàn)代法治國家正在實踐的法律程序,因為目前它僅適用于英美法系國家。則,構(gòu)建獨立的量刑程序是否能成為我國改革庭審程序而實現(xiàn)司法公正的必然路徑呢?我國量刑程序的根本問題是什么?獨立的量刑程序是否能夠適應(yīng)我國的司法傳統(tǒng)?怎

2、樣去構(gòu)建適合我國司法實踐的獨立的量刑程序?這些問題一直困擾著我國的理論界和實務(wù)界,本文擬對這些問題進展探討。本文包括五大局部：第一局部,量刑程序獨立化的概述。首先對量刑程序的涵義做了闡述,分析了量刑程序在我國的缺失,接著介紹了量刑程序獨立化的表現(xiàn)及特征,為實現(xiàn)量刑規(guī)化而提出量刑程序獨立化的背景,最后闡述了關(guān)于量刑程序獨立化的三種代表性的觀點。第二局部,獨立的量刑程序的價值的分析。獨立的量刑程序具備四項價值：實體正義價值、程序正義價值、權(quán)利保障價值、權(quán)力制約價值。第三局部,國外量刑程序獨立化模式的比擬法考察。分別介紹了兩大法系國家量刑程序模式的立法及司法現(xiàn)狀。分析認為,英美法系除了契合本國的司法

3、傳統(tǒng)觀念外,諸多的配套制度的配合實施是英美法系國家的獨立的量刑程序良好運行的關(guān)鍵；大陸法系國家雖然并沒有獨立的量刑程序,但是他們都普遍在普通程序外設(shè)立了特殊的庭審程序表達獨立的量刑程序的特征。而且,構(gòu)建獨立的量刑辯論程序是其進展量刑改革的趨勢。第四局部,我國量刑程序不獨立的缺陷及理論與實務(wù)困境。我國量刑程序的缺陷是：法官量刑的“隱蔽性,法官的量刑自由裁量權(quán)過大且不受制約,人風(fēng)格查制度缺失,被害人的立法定位與司法中地位的矛盾性等。我國量刑程序的理論與實務(wù)困境是：沒有區(qū)分證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),沒有設(shè)定證據(jù)規(guī)則的適用圍,沒有區(qū)分定罪證據(jù)和量刑證據(jù)而產(chǎn)生的法官裁判的困境,合一的庭審模式使得辯護律師處于為難與無奈的

4、境地,正在積極試點的公訴機關(guān)量刑建議制度沒有良好的實施空間等。第五局部,我國獨立的量刑程序的構(gòu)建。首先分析了構(gòu)建我國獨立的量刑程序必須考慮到的制度障礙：“案卷筆錄式審判,不完善的審前分流機制,審判委員會的設(shè)置,量刑事實的匱乏和審前的普遍羈押。然后提出構(gòu)建獨立的量刑辯論程序要遵循的三個原則：量刑個別化原則、合作性司法原則和及時性原則,提出構(gòu)建獨立的量刑程序的具體設(shè)想,建議我國量刑規(guī)化活動以實體改革為主,程序改革為輔,最后著重提出使獨立的量刑程序良好運行的相關(guān)配套措施?！居⑽恼縏he 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.【關(guān)鍵詞】量刑 量刑程序 獨立的量刑程序【英文關(guān)鍵詞】sentencing sentencing procedure ind

20、ependent sentencing procedure【目錄】量刑程序的獨立化問題研究摘要4-6Abstract6-7引言12-131 量刑程序獨立化概述13-181.1 量刑程序的涵義131.2 量刑程序的獨立化的涵義及特征13-141.3 量刑程序獨立化提出的背景14-161.4 相關(guān)論說16-181.4.1 完全獨立的量刑程序161.4.2 相對獨立的量刑程序16-171.4.3 不獨立的量刑程序17-182 獨立量刑程序的價值18-222.1 實體正義價值18-192.2 程序正義價值192.3 權(quán)利保障價值19-202.4 權(quán)力制約價值20-223 國外量刑程序獨立化模式的比擬法考察22-303.1 英美法系國家的量刑程序模式22-253.1.1 英國22-243.1.2 美國24-253.2 英美法系量刑程序模式的評析25-273.2.1 與定罪程序相獨立的裁判程序253.2.2 被害人主體地位的實質(zhì)性253.2.3 量刑事實的相異性和豐富性25-263.2.4 證明規(guī)則和證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在定罪和量刑中的相異性26-273.3 大陸法系的量刑程序模式27-293.3.1 德國27-283.3.2 法國283.3.3 日本28-293.4 大陸法系國家量刑程序模式的評析29-304 我國量刑程序不獨立的缺陷及理論與實務(wù)