酌定量刑情节规范适用研究

发布时间：2018-09-16 19:03

【摘要】：正如有学者所言,任何一起刑事案件可能没有法定量刑情节,但一般不可能没有酌定量刑情节。随着刑罚理论和量刑实践的不断发展,酌定量刑情节在量刑中发挥着日趋重要的作用。酌定量刑情节的存在和正确适用不仅有助于刑罚目的的实现,更是实现刑罚公正和刑罚个别化的必然要求。长期以来,鉴于酌定量刑情节的“酌定性”特征,理论界往往认为其本身不能或不应该被规范,否则就失去了存在的价值和意义,因此对酌定量刑情节规范适用的研究往往望而却步,个别学者甚至对酌定量刑情节存在的“正当性”提出质疑,认为其违反了罪刑法定的刑法基本原则。2013年12月,最高人民法院下发了《关于实施量刑规范化工作的通知》和《关于常见犯罪的量刑指导意见》,决定从2014年1月1日起正式实施量刑规范化工作。其中,规范酌定量刑情节适用成为量刑规范化工作的重要内容之一,酌定量刑情节被正式纳入规范适用的轨道。本文尝试以2010年最高人民法院制定的《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》(下称《量刑指导意见》)和《人民法院量刑程序意见(试行)》(下称《量刑程序意见》)为指导,辨析论证了酌定量刑情节的概念特征、法理依据以及适用问题和影响力；并在对司法实践中常见酌定量刑情节分类梳理的基础上,从实体和程序两个方面提出了酌定量刑情节规范适用的标准和要求；最后对其规范路径提出完善建议,为立法机关和司法机关提供参考。本文分为导言和正文两部分。根据内容布局,正文可分为以下六个部分。第一章为酌定量刑情节规范适用概述,共分为三节。鉴于酌定量刑情节在量刑中的重要地位和作用,对其规范不仅是量刑规范化改革的重要内容,更是实现司法公正的关键环节。第一节介绍我国量刑规范化改革的背景与意义。梳理介绍探索与实践的各个阶段，在此基础上论证提出，量刑规范化必然离不开对酌定量刑情节适用的规范。指出酌定量刑情节规范适用的目标定位是为法官正确行使裁量权提供依据和指引，其意义在于能够以看得见的方式实现司法公正，抑制人为因素对量刑活动的干扰，实现量刑法律效果与社会效果的统一。第二节界定酌定量刑情节的概念和特征。从酌定量刑情节的概念纷争出发，通过对刑法中“情节”、“量刑情节”概念的辨析，结合学界通说和《量刑指导意见》相关规定，重新将“酌定量刑情节”定义为：犯罪构成事实情节和法定量刑情节以外的，由法官在量刑时予以酌情认定并对量刑结果产生影响的各种案件情节，提出酌定量刑情节具有非法定性、丰富性、具体性和变化性的特征。第三节为国外酌定量刑情节规范适用的介绍与启示。通过比较借鉴英美法系和大陆法系国家和地区在酌定量刑情节规范适用方面的发展和经验，提出酌定量刑情节的规范适用符合世界量刑制度的发展趋势、法官的自由裁量权应当受到尊重和必要限制的观点。第二章为酌定量刑情节的理论依据和适用问题，共分为三节。由于法律对酌定量刑情节的内容和影响力没有具体规定，理论界又缺乏统一认识，导致在司法实践中法官不敢适用、过度适用以及选择性适用的问题频频出现，并成为导致量刑不公的重要原因。从理论上说明和解决这些问题，对于促进酌定量刑情节的规范适用具有非常重要的意义。第一节分析阐明酌定量刑情节的理论依据。主要解决酌定量刑情节之所以存在并适用的理论问题，认为酌定量刑情节能够满足刑罚的目的及恢复性司法理论的需要，是罪刑相适应原则的要求和原则性与灵活性相统一的结果，也是刑罚个别化实现的依据。第二节论述酌定量刑情节的影响力。从酌定量刑情节“酌定性”的性质出发，提出其对量刑具有从重、从轻和减轻处罚的影响力，但不具有免除处罚的作用，也不存在“应当型”情节。第三节归纳分析酌定量刑情节实践适用中存在的主要问题。某些酌定量刑情节已经成为影响量刑的关键因素，如退赃、退赔、赔偿经济损失等酌定量刑情节的影响力有时甚至超越了自首、坦白等法定量刑情节，然而提取标准不明确、法官裁量权过大、选择性适用的问题却始终困扰着酌定量刑情节的正确适用。第三章为常见酌定量刑情节的分类梳理，共分为三节。本章以相关刑事法律和1997年新刑法实施以来最高人民法院出台的相关刑事司法解释和规范性文件为范围，从法律规定、理论依据、实践认定和具体案例的视角对常见酌定量刑情节逐项进行分析论证，并归纳提炼出其适用规律。为便于分析论证，梳理以产生时间先后顺序为准，将酌定量刑情节划分为罪前酌定量刑情节、罪中酌定量刑情节、罪后酌定量刑情节。第一节常见罪前酌定量刑情节，分析论证将被告人一贯表现、初犯、偶犯、前科劣迹设为酌定量刑情节的必要性及其认定标准。第二节常见罪中酌定量刑情节，分析论证重大自然灾害期间犯罪、特殊犯罪方法或手段、特别危害后果、亲属间犯罪、针对弱势人员犯罪及被害人过错设为酌定量刑情节的必要性和及其适用标准。第三节常见罪后酌定量刑情节，分析论证将事后减少犯罪损失、退赃、退赔、赔偿经济损失、当庭自愿认罪、被害人谅解设为酌定量刑情节的必要性及其适用标准。第四章为酌定量刑情节的提取标准，共分为四节。本章在第三章对常见酌定量刑情节分类梳理的基础上，结合《量刑指导意见》中酌定量刑情节的相关规定，对酌定量刑情节的认定原则和提取标准进行了归纳提炼，并以此为依据，对司法实践中非酌定量刑情节情形予以排除。第一节分析了《量刑指导意见》中酌定量刑情节相关规定的不足。认为《量刑指导意见》不仅没有明确酌定量刑情节的提取标准，反而限制了法官的自由裁量权，使得原本应属于相对自由裁量的内容变成了按图索骥的机械行为。第二节提出酌定量刑情节的适用原则，分别是全面考量、禁止重复评价和个别化原则。全面考量原则是指应当考量所有除犯罪构成事实情节和法定量刑情节以外、可能对量刑产生影响的事实情况；禁止重复评价原则是指对案件的同一事实不能进行重复评价，以免过度加重或减轻被告人的刑罚；个别化原则是指应当具体案件具体认定，同时要反映出具体个案不同于一类案件的特殊性。第三节归纳提炼出酌定量刑情节的提取标准，分别是符合社会理性和道德、符合刑罚根据、典型性和可证明性的标准，并主张除根据上述标准判断提取以外，还应当综合考虑犯罪的类型、性质、犯罪构成事实情节和法定量刑情节等因素。第四节为非酌定量刑情节情形的排除。结合司法实践情况和办案经验，根据酌定量刑情节的提取标准，提出并排除一些非酌定量刑情节情形，如社会治安形势、被告人拒不认罪、判决前被告人已羁押期限。第五章为酌定量刑情节的适用程序，共分两节。本章提出，酌定量刑情节的认定和适用之所以乱象丛生，除了其本身的复杂性和实体法规定的缺失外，酌定量刑情节的证据要求、证明责任、证明标准以及适用程序的不规范、不完善也是重要原因。第一节分析论述酌定量刑情节的证据与证明。提出酌定量刑情节的证据要求，包括禁止法官主动收集、注重收集的全面性、必须经过庭审质证。明确酌定量刑情节证明责任分配原则为“谁主张、谁举证”，控辩双方和被害方都要承担相应的证明责任。主张适度降低酌定量刑情节的证明标准，对不利于被告人的酌定量刑情节采用“严格证明”标准，对有利于被告人的则采用“优势证据”证明标准。第二节提出酌定量刑情节适用程序的完善建议，具体包括强化检察机关量刑建议、深化裁判文书说理、建立中立社会调查机构。第六章为酌定量刑情节的规范路径，共分为四节。从短期来看，从司法适用层面规范酌定量刑情节适用具有立竿见影之功效，但从长远来看，从立法层面规范酌定量刑情节不仅可以有效制约法官裁量权的过度行使，而且有利于提高司法效率和实现司法统一。第一节明确酌定量刑情节的刑法地位。针对《刑法》第61条“酌定量刑情节适用的法律依据”规定的不足之处，建议在《刑法》第61条之后增加“酌定量刑情节的范围”和“禁止重复评价”两款规定，以对酌定量刑情节的刑法地位和考量范围加以明确。第二节提出要对部分酌定量刑情节予以法定化，并结合法定化的成功实践，总结提出部分酌定量刑情节法定化的必要条件。第三节认为以司法解释和规范性司法文件对酌定量刑情节进行规范，，不仅可以弥补刑法滞后性的不足，而且能够为酌定量刑情节的法定化积累经验。第四节强调构建案例指导制度对酌定量刑情节的规范具有重要意义，并对案例指导制度的完善提出了若干建议，具体包括严格案例选择标准、强化案例约束力以及构建科学的案例层级体系。
[Abstract]:As some scholars have said, there may be no statutory circumstances of sentencing in any criminal case, but it is impossible to do without discretionary circumstances of sentencing. With the continuous development of the theory and practice of sentencing, discretionary circumstances of sentencing play an increasingly important role in sentencing.
For a long time, in view of the "discretionary" characteristics of discretionary circumstances, theorists often believe that it can not or should not be regulated, otherwise it will lose its value and significance of existence, so discretionary circumstances of sentencing. In December 2013, the Supreme People's Court issued the Notice on the Implementation of Standardization of Sentencing and the Guiding Opinion on the Sentencing of Common Crimes. It is decided to formally implement the standardization of sentencing from January 1, 2014. Among them, standardizing the application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing has become one of the important contents of the standardization of sentencing. The discretionary circumstances of sentencing have been formally put into the orbit of standardization application. This paper attempts to take the "Guiding Opinions of the People's Court on Sentencing (Trial Implementation)" formulated by the Supreme People's Court in 2010 (hereinafter referred to as " Guided by the Guiding Opinions on Sentencing Procedure and the Opinions on Sentencing Procedure of the People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Opinions on Sentencing Procedure), this paper discriminates and demonstrates the conceptual features, legal basis, applicable problems and influence of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, and on the basis of sorting out the common discretionary circumstances of sentencing in judicial practice, it discusses the substantive and procedural aspects. This paper puts forward the standards and requirements for the application of the discretionary circumstances of sentences, and finally puts forward some suggestions for the improvement of the normative path for the legislative and judicial organs.
In view of the important position and role of discretionary circumstances in sentencing, its standardization is not only an important content of the reform of sentencing standardization, but also a key link to realize judicial justice. The first section introduces the background and significance of the reform of sentencing standardization in China. On this basis, the author argues that the standardization of sentencing can not be separated from the norms applicable to discretionary circumstances of sentencing. The second section defines the concept and characteristics of discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Starting from the disputes in the concept of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, this paper analyzes the concepts of "circumstances" and "circumstances of sentencing" in criminal law, and combines the general theory of academia with the relevant provisions of "Guiding Opinions on sentencing". This paper redefines the discretionary circumstances of sentencing as various cases which are beyond the factual circumstances of the crime and the circumstance of the statutory sentencing and are determined by the judge at his discretion in sentencing and have an impact on the result of sentencing. It points out that the discretionary circumstances of sentencing have the characteristics of illegality, richness, concreteness and variability. The introduction and Enlightenment of the application of the criterion of circumstances of sentencing. By comparing and drawing lessons from the development and experience of the countries and regions of common law system and continental law system in the application of the criterion of circumstances of sentencing discretion, this paper puts forward that the application of the criterion of circumstances of sentencing discretion conforms to the development trend of sentencing system in the world, and the discretion of judges should be respected and limited. The viewpoint of system.
The second chapter is the theoretical basis and application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which is divided into three sections. Because the law has no specific provisions on the content and influence of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, the theoretical circles lack a unified understanding, leading to the judicial practice judges dare not apply, excessive application and selective application of the problem occur frequently, and become a quantity. It is of great significance to explain and solve these problems theoretically for promoting the standardization and application of discretionary circumstances. Section 1 analyzes and expounds the theoretical basis of discretionary circumstances of punishment. The purpose of penalty and the need of restorative judicial theory are the result of the unification of the principle of compatibility between crime and punishment, the principle and flexibility, and the basis of the realization of individualization of penalty. Section 2 discusses the influence of discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Starting from the nature of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, it is pointed out that discretionary circumstances of sentencing are of great importance and light weight. The third section summarizes and analyzes the main problems in the application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Some discretionary circumstances of sentencing have become the key factors affecting sentencing, such as returning stolen goods, returning compensation, compensating for economic losses and other discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Sometimes the loudness even surpasses surrender, confession and other statutory circumstances of sentencing, but the extraction criteria are not clear, the judge's discretion is too large, the problem of selective application has always been plagued by the correct application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing.
The third chapter is the classification of common discretionary sentencing circumstances, which is divided into three sections. This chapter takes the relevant criminal law and the relevant criminal judicial interpretation and normative documents issued by the Supreme People's Court since the implementation of the new criminal law in 1997 as the scope, from the legal provisions, theoretical basis, practical identification and specific case Perspective of the common discretionary sentencing circumstances. In order to facilitate analysis and argumentation, comb out the sequence of time to produce, divide discretionary sentencing circumstances into discretionary sentencing circumstances before crime, discretionary sentencing circumstances in crime, discretionary sentencing circumstances after crime. At present, the first offense, accidental offense and criminal record are the necessity and criteria for determining the circumstances of discretionary sentencing. Section 2 The discretionary circumstances of sentencing in common crimes are analyzed and demonstrated. Crimes committed during major natural disasters, special methods or means of crime, especially harmful consequences, crimes committed between relatives, crimes committed against vulnerable persons and the fault of victims are discretionary circumstances of sentencing. The third section analyzes and proves the necessity and applicable standard of reducing the criminal loss, returning the stolen goods, returning the compensation, compensating the economic loss, voluntarily pleading guilty in court and the victim's understanding as the discretionary circumstances of sentencing.
Chapter Four is the extraction criteria of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which is divided into four sections. On the basis of the classification of common circumstances of discretionary circumstances of sentencing in Chapter Three, combined with the relevant provisions of discretionary circumstances of sentencing in Guiding Opinions on sentencing, this chapter summarizes and refines the identification principles and extraction criteria of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, and on the basis of this, summarizes the judicial facts. The first section analyzes the deficiencies of the relevant provisions in the Guiding Opinions on Sentencing. It holds that the Guiding Opinions on Sentencing not only fails to specify the criteria for extracting the circumstances of sentencing discretion, but also limits the discretion of judges, making the content which should have belonged to relative discretion become. Section 2 puts forward the applicable principles of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, namely, comprehensive consideration, prohibition of repeated evaluation and individualization. Principle refers to the same fact of the case can not be repeated evaluation, in order to avoid excessive aggravation or mitigation of the defendant's punishment; Individualization principle refers to the specific case should be identified, while reflecting the specific case is different from a class of cases. Section 3 summarizes the extraction criteria of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, respectively, is in line with the criteria. Social reason and morality conform to the criteria of penalty basis, typicality and provability, and advocate that in addition to judging and extracting according to the above criteria, we should also consider synthetically the type, nature of the crime, the factual circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of the legally prescribed punishment. According to the criteria for extracting discretionary circumstances of sentencing, some cases of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, such as the social security situation, the defendant refused to plead guilty, and the time limit for the defendant to be detained before the judgment, were put forward and excluded.
The fifth chapter is the application procedure of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which is divided into two sections. This chapter points out that the identification and application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing are disorderly, besides its own complexity and the lack of substantive law, the evidential requirements of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, the burden of proof, the standard of proof and the non-standard procedure of application are also important. The first section analyzes and discusses the evidence and proof of discretionary circumstances of sentencing.The requirements of evidence for discretionary circumstances of sentencing are put forward,including forbidding judges to collect the evidence voluntarily and paying attention to the comprehensiveness of the collection.The principle of distribution of burden of proof in discretionary circumstances of sentencing must be clarified.The prosecution and defense sides and the victim should bear the burden of proof. The corresponding burden of proof is advocated. The standard of proof of discretionary circumstances of sentencing should be moderately lowered, the standard of "strict proof" should be adopted for circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, and the standard of "superior evidence" should be adopted for those favorable to the defendant. Section 2 puts forward suggestions for perfecting the procedure of application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, including strengthening procuratorial machinery. We should deepen the judgment of sentencing and establish a neutral social investigation organization.
Chapter 6 is the normative path of discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which is divided into four sections. In the short run, it is of immediate effect to regulate the application of discretionary circumstances of sentencing from the perspective of judicial application, but in the long run, it is not only effective to restrict the excessive exercise of judges'discretion, but also conducive to the improvement of Judicature from the perspective of legislation. Section 1 clarifies the status of discretionary circumstances in criminal law. In view of the shortcomings of the provisions of Article 61 of the Criminal Law on the legal basis for the application of discretionary circumstances, it is proposed to add the provisions of "the scope of discretionary circumstances" and "the prohibition of repeated evaluation" after Article 61 of the Criminal Law to the discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Section 2 proposes that some discretionary circumstances should be legalized, and the necessary conditions for the legalization of some discretionary circumstances should be summarized and put forward in combination with the successful practice of legalization. In order to make up for the lag of criminal law and accumulate experience for the legalization of discretionary circumstances, section 4 emphasizes that the construction of case guidance system is of great significance to the standardization of discretionary circumstances, and puts forward some suggestions for the perfection of case guidance system, including strict case selection criteria, strengthening case binding force and so on. Constructing a scientific case hierarchy system.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2;D924.13

【参考文献】