量刑自由裁量权研究

发布时间：2018-01-21 15:27

本文关键词： 量刑自由裁量权行使主体量刑规范化　出处：《重庆大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：量刑被称为刑法领域的“哥德巴赫猜想”，可见对犯罪人正确地适用刑罚是一件很困难的事。正因为如此，从世界范围内来看，各国都对量刑问题予以高度重视，制定了一系列制度来保证量刑的公正。在各种有助于实现量刑公正的制度当中，与量刑自由裁量权相关的制度显得尤为重要。在我国，近年来，由于社会主义法制不完善及一些其它原因，司法实践中涌现出了一些量刑不公的现象，审判者的量刑自由裁量权再一次引起了社会的关注。为了达成对量刑自由裁量权更好的认识以及对其更好的规制，本文拟对量刑自由裁量权相关问题进行厘清，，力求在理论上对量刑自由裁量权达成一个更好的定位，在实务上能对量刑自由裁量权相关规制制度的完善提供一些指导。本文第一部分是对量刑自由裁量权的涵义的界定。在阐述量刑自由裁量权的涵义之前，笔者花了较大笔墨对与之息息相关的自由裁量权的涵义进行了厘清，是因为自由裁量权是量刑自由裁量权的基础和核心，只有弄清自由裁量权的涵义才能对量刑自由裁量权的涵义有更为清晰的把握。本文第二部分是对量刑自由裁量权与相关概念之间的辨析。根据第一部分的涵义把量刑自由裁量权与相关概念进行界划，有助于我们更好的把握量刑自由裁量权的定位。本文第三部分是关于量刑自由裁量权在两大法系国家以及我国的发展脉络。分别从其在两大法系成型前、成型后以及其在我国的发展轨迹来进行阐述。最后对当代世界两大法系的量刑自由裁量权的发展趋势作出总结并得出结论，两大法系国家对量刑自由裁量权都在从严格规则主义和绝对自由裁量主义向相对自由裁量主义融合。本文第四部分分析量刑自由裁量权存在价值以及其行使可能产生的负作用。得出量刑自由裁量权的存在价值在于弥补刑法条文本身所不可避免的缺陷，实现个案量刑正义。本文第五部分论述量刑基本原则对量刑自由裁量权行使的制约。把量刑自由裁量权行使应遵循的底线勾勒出来，才能进一步构建对其进行制约的机制。本文第六部分界定量刑自由裁量权行使主体。先对我国及两大法系的量刑自由裁量权行使主体现状做出了阐述，然后对量刑自由裁量权的合理行使主体应具备的资质做出分析，最后得出我国应将量刑自由裁量权行使主体交给职业法官的结论。本文的最后部分针对我国量刑规范化改革前以及量刑规范化改革中的与量刑自由裁量权相关的法律制度进行论述，分析量刑规范化改革中存在的不足，并在此基础上提出了一些完善意见。
[Abstract]:Sentencing is called "Goldbach conjecture" in the field of criminal law. It can be seen that it is very difficult to apply the penalty correctly to the criminal. All countries attach great importance to sentencing issues, and have formulated a series of systems to ensure the fairness of sentencing. In our country, in recent years, due to the imperfect socialist legal system and some other reasons, a number of unfair sentencing phenomenon emerged in judicial practice. In order to achieve a better understanding of sentencing discretion and better regulation, this paper intends to clarify the relevant issues of sentencing discretion. In order to achieve a better position on the discretion of sentencing in theory, and provide some guidance to improve the relevant regulatory system of sentencing discretion in practice. The first part of this paper is to define the meaning of sentencing discretion. Before expounding the meaning of sentencing discretion, the author spent a lot of time to clarify the meaning of discretion which is closely related to it. The reason is that discretion is the basis and core of sentencing discretion. Only by understanding the meaning of discretion can we have a clearer understanding of the meaning of discretion. The second part of this paper is to distinguish and analyze the discretion of sentencing and related concepts. According to the meaning of the first part, the discretion of sentencing and related concepts are delimited. It is helpful for us to better grasp the position of sentencing discretion. The third part of this article is about the discretion of sentencing in the two legal system countries as well as China's development context. Respectively from its formation in the two legal systems before. After shaping and its development track in China to elaborate. Finally the sentencing discretion of the two major legal systems in the world to summarize the development trend and draw a conclusion. In the two legal system countries, the discretion of sentencing is merging from strict rule doctrine and absolute discretion doctrine to relative discretion. The 4th part of this paper analyzes the value of sentencing discretion and its possible negative effects. The conclusion is that the existence value of sentencing discretion is to make up for the inevitable defects of the criminal law itself. To realize the justice of sentencing in individual cases. The 5th part of this paper discusses the restriction of the basic principle of sentencing on the exercise of the discretion of sentencing, and outlines the bottom line that should be followed in the exercise of the discretion of sentencing, so as to further construct the mechanism of restriction. The 6th part of this paper defines the subject of the exercise of discretion of sentencing. First of all, it expounds the status quo of the exercise of discretion of sentencing in China and the two major legal systems. Then the author makes an analysis of the qualification that should be possessed by the subject of the reasonable exercise of the discretion of sentencing, and finally draws the conclusion that the subject of the exercise of the discretion of sentencing should be given to the professional judge in our country. The last part of this paper discusses the legal system related to the discretion of sentencing before the reform of sentencing standardization and sentencing standardization reform, and analyzes the shortcomings in the reform of sentencing standardization. On this basis, some suggestions are put forward.
【学位授予单位】：重庆大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D925.2;D926.2

【相似文献】