检察监督语境下的量刑规范化改革

发布时间：2018-05-13 04:19

本文选题：量刑改革 + 量刑规范化　；参考：《宁波大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：量刑规范化改革在司法实践中已有十余年探索历史，司法决策高层也以文件形式进行规划与规范，基层探索与最高司法机关出台规范性文件穿插进行。从改革的实施主体来看，法院系统与检察系统都进行了相应努力，前者以量刑实体规范为重点、覆盖量刑审理程序，后者主要是以量刑建议作为载体。但是，距最高司法机关决定自2010年10月“全面铺开”至今已逾两年，量刑改革却在整体上停滞不前。造成这种困顿局面的原因，从监督对象——法院的量刑规范化改革来看，主要有量刑计算方法复杂、程序设计不科学、当事人参与度不高、量刑信息的采信缺乏规制等；从监督实践——检察机关自身来看，主要是以量刑建议为基本载体进行设计和推进的，但是，一方面量刑建议存在法律依据缺失、法律效力不足等问题，另一方面，以量刑建议替代检察机关参与量刑活动，，既弱化了检察机关在量刑活动中的职能内涵，又在客观上导致检察量刑监督实体标准的继续缺失，离预期与自评的社会效果相差甚远。量刑建议不能、也不宜替代或承载检察机关在量刑规范化改革中的职能。作为法律监督机关，检察机关不仅要积极参与量刑规范化改革，更要全面履行量刑监督职责，从实体与程序的双重监督着手，准确定位自身角色，积极参与量刑规则制订，有效应对量刑程序改革，提升量刑监督质效，保障量刑规范化改革实现预期目标及预设进程。
[Abstract]:The reform of sentencing standardization has been explored for more than ten years in judicial practice. The senior level of judicial decision-making has also planned and standardized in the form of documents, and the grass-roots exploration and the introduction of normative documents by the highest judicial organs have been carried out. From the point of view of the main body of the reform, both the court system and the procuratorial system have made corresponding efforts. The former focuses on the substantive norms of sentencing, covering the sentencing proceedings, and the latter mainly takes sentencing advice as the carrier. But more than two years after the Supreme Judiciary's decision to "roll out" in October 2010, sentencing reform has stagnated overall. The reasons for this difficult situation are the complexity of sentencing calculation methods, the unscientific design of procedures, the low participation of the parties and the lack of regulation on the adoption of sentencing information, from the point of view of the standardized sentencing reform of the court, which is the object of supervision. From the point of view of the supervisory practice-the procuratorial organ itself, it is mainly designed and promoted with sentencing advice as the basic carrier. However, on the one hand, there are problems such as lack of legal basis and insufficient legal effectiveness in sentencing recommendations; on the other hand, The substitution of sentencing advice for procuratorial organs to participate in sentencing activities not only weakens the functional connotation of procuratorial organs in sentencing activities, but also objectively leads to the continuing absence of substantive standards of procuratorial and sentencing supervision, which is far from the social effect of expectation and self-evaluation. Sentencing advice cannot and should not replace or bear the functions of procuratorial organs in the reform of sentencing standardization. As a legal supervisory organ, procuratorial organs should not only actively participate in the reform of sentencing standardization, but also fully perform their duties of sentencing supervision, starting from the dual supervision of entities and procedures, accurately positioning their own roles, and actively participating in the formulation of sentencing rules. It can effectively deal with the reform of sentencing procedure, improve the quality and effectiveness of sentencing supervision, and ensure that the reform of sentencing standardization realizes the expected goal and presupposition process.
【学位授予单位】：宁波大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D925.2;D926.3

【参考文献】