认知量刑基准

发布时间：2018-05-03 02:15

本文选题：量刑基准 + 基准刑　；参考：《南京师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：量刑基准主要有广义和狭义之分,前者是指法官在量刑的过程中所应该考虑的因素以及遵循的原则,而后者主要是指抽象个罪在剔除法定的量刑情节和酌定量刑情节所应该判处的刑罚量,它表现为一定的刑罚幅度而不是一个具体的点。本文采取的是狭义的量刑基准概念,即认为量刑基准是指剔除各种法定的量刑情节和酌定的量刑情节,抽象个罪在一般既遂状态的犯罪构成的基本事实所应判处的刑罚量。刑基准表现为一定的刑罚幅度而并不是表现为一个具体的刑罚点量刑基准是一个抽象的、规范层面的存在,它与基准刑并不是同一个概念。对于量刑基准的确立,本文提出了量刑基准确立的两种思路：一是通过数学的逻辑思路,将刑罚量“程式化”；二是契合司法实践的需要,将量刑基准的规范性和可操作性相结合。传统的确立方法主要有五种：中线论、重心论、主要因素论、形势论和分格论。本文对这五种方法作出了相应的评价,认为每种方法均优势、不足并存。另外有学者提出了一种量刑基准确立的新理论：计算程式法。这种理论的精髓在于：量刑基准是一个由起点刑和终点刑组成的刑罚幅度,“起点——终点”之间的刑罚幅度变化值是通过一定的计算程式得来的。在确立量刑基准时,“计算程式理论”区分了数额犯和非数额犯,并提出了三种模式。计算程式理论论证充分、理论体系完备,虽然存在不足,但瑕不掩瑜。对于量刑基准的规范,本文主要以最高人民法院颁布的《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》为蓝本。《意见》对于量刑规范化具有十分深远的影响,它规定了量刑三步骤：确定量刑起点→在量刑起点的基础上确定基准刑→根据各种量刑情节调整基准刑从而确定宣告刑。本文对《意见》规定的量刑方法做出了评价,认为它是优势与不足并存。其中,它的内在优势是：量刑方法的“定性”和“定量”相结合,为法官作出准确的宣告刑提供“双重保障”；在确定基准刑时,借鉴了“计算程式”理论的原理；在确定宣告刑时,采用了浮动制量刑比例模式；统一了量刑步骤,确保法官量刑“有章可循”,并对如何确定量刑起点、基准刑和宣告刑作了具体化。它的不足主要有两点：一是没有明确规定量刑基准的概念以及确立方法,不利于将量刑基准和基准刑的概念相区分；二是只规定了十五个常见罪名的基准刑,对于指导量刑实践显得不足。最后,本文分析了两个典型的案例,分析如何确定根据犯罪数额确定量刑的起点和基准刑以及几个量刑情节并存时的适用。
[Abstract]:Sentencing criteria are mainly divided into broad sense and narrow sense. The former refers to the factors to be considered and the principles to be followed by judges in the process of sentencing. The latter mainly refers to the amount of penalty that should be imposed by abstracting individual crime in eliminating statutory circumstances of sentencing and discretionary circumstances of sentencing, which shows a certain range of penalties rather than a specific point. This paper adopts the concept of sentencing benchmark in a narrow sense, that is to say, the standard of sentencing refers to the amount of penalty that should be imposed by excluding all kinds of statutory circumstances of sentencing and discretionary circumstances of sentencing and abstracting the basic facts of the constitution of the crime in the general accomplished state. The standard of punishment represents a certain range of penalties, but not a specific penalty point. It is an abstract and normative existence, and it is not the same concept as the standard penalty. As for the establishment of sentencing benchmark, this paper puts forward two ways of establishing sentencing benchmark: one is to "program" the amount of penalty through mathematical logic, the other is to meet the needs of judicial practice. The standard and maneuverability of sentencing standard are combined. There are five kinds of traditional methods: centroid theory, barycenter theory, main factor theory, situation theory and division theory. This paper makes a corresponding evaluation of the five methods, and thinks that each method has advantages and disadvantages. In addition, some scholars put forward a new theory of sentencing benchmark: computational programming. The essence of this theory is that the standard of sentencing is a penalty range composed of the starting penalty and the terminal penalty, and the range of the penalty range between the starting point and the end point is obtained by a certain calculation program. In establishing the standard of sentencing, the Computational Program Theory distinguishes the amount crime from the non-amount crime, and puts forward three models. The computational program theory is well demonstrated and the theoretical system is complete. As for the standard of sentencing, this paper mainly takes the sentencing guidance of the people's Court (trial) issued by the Supreme people's Court as the model. The opinion has a profound influence on the standardization of sentencing. It stipulates three steps of sentencing: to determine the starting point of sentencing on the basis of sentencing starting point to determine the standard punishment according to various sentencing circumstances to adjust the standard penalty to determine the sentence of declaration. This paper evaluates the sentencing method stipulated in opinion, and considers that it is the coexistence of advantages and disadvantages. Among them, its inherent advantages are: the combination of "qualitative" and "quantitative" sentencing methods to provide a "double guarantee" for the judge to make an accurate declaration of punishment; In the determination of the sentence, the floating system is adopted, the sentencing steps are unified to ensure that the judge "has rules to follow" in sentencing, and how to determine the starting point of sentencing, the standard penalty and the proclamation penalty are concretized. It has two main shortcomings: first, it does not clearly define the concept and method of sentencing benchmark, which is not conducive to the distinction between sentencing benchmark and benchmark punishment; second, it only stipulates the standard penalty for 15 common crimes. For the guidance of sentencing practice is inadequate. Finally, this paper analyzes two typical cases, and analyzes how to determine the starting point and benchmark punishment of sentencing according to the amount of crime and the applicability of several circumstances of sentencing.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.13

【参考文献】