我国量刑规范化的缺陷与完善

发布时间：2018-06-02 10:14

本文选题：量刑规范化 + 借鉴　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国的量刑规范化改革在近些年逐渐成为人们关注的焦点。量刑规范化具有重要的法律意义和社会意义，其不仅关系到公民自身权益，同时也无时无刻不在体现着司法的公正以维护社会的稳定。量刑规范化的改革也是世界各国所共同关注的问题，无论是英美法系还是大陆法系的国家都在积极致力于减少量刑偏差以达到量刑均衡。应当说，我国的量刑规范化改革起步较晚，“在上个世纪90年代左右，国内少部分地区检察院才开始了量刑建议制度的探索。其后，于2009年6月，在由最高人民法院制定的《人民法院量刑指导意见（试行）》以及《人民法院量刑程序指导意见（试行）》中已经有所规定，正式在全国试行是在2010年10月1日。”1本文将量刑规范化的改革作为选题，力图着重研究我国目前量刑规范化改革的得与失，而且着重介绍英美法系和大陆法系典型国家在量刑规范化方面的探索和成功经验，以期对我国的司法改革提供帮助。本文共分为四章，第一章为量刑规范化概说。首先对量刑规范化的概念进行了介绍和分析。其次，量刑规范化的意义与内涵也在本章中有所涉及。我国近期推行的量刑规范化改革应当说是备受关注，分析量刑规范化改革的相关内容就必须对有关量刑规范化的基础概念与价值进行阐释。第二章为我国量刑规范化改革所面临的缺陷。大力推行量刑规范化改革本身是值得肯定的，不过就目前而言，我国的量刑规范化改革还有诸多实体上、程序上以及价值上的缺陷。上述缺陷会制约改革的进程。第三章主要是英美法系和大陆法系典型国家在量刑规范化改革方面现状与成果方面的介绍。美国量刑规范化主要特色在于《量刑指南》的颁布具有指导意义，，另外完全独立的量刑程序为法官的量刑活动提供很好的平台。德国量刑规范化就是典型大陆法系的定罪与量刑集于一体的审理模式，这种模式有优势，但也存在显著地弊端。两种法系对量刑规范化不同的探索，都值得我国量刑规范化改革加以借鉴。第四章则是针对我国目前量刑规范化改革的现状提出完善方面的若干思考。首先，量刑基准刑的设置要更加合理；建立完善的案例指导制度，这是从实体的角度对完善量刑规范化改革的思考。而从程序的角度，则应当逐步建立独立的量刑程序。
[Abstract]:The reform of sentencing standardization in China has gradually become the focus of attention in recent years. Sentencing standardization has important legal and social significance, which not only relates to citizens' own rights and interests, but also reflects the justice of justice in order to maintain social stability all the time. The reform of sentencing standardization is also a common concern of all countries in the world, both Anglo-American law system and civil law system countries are actively committed to reducing sentencing deviation to achieve a balanced sentencing. It should be said that the reform of sentencing standardization in our country started relatively late. "in the 1990s or so, the procuratorate of a small number of regions in China began to explore the sentencing suggestion system. Subsequently, in June 2009, provisions were made in the guidelines on sentencing of the people's Court (for trial implementation) and in the guidance on sentencing procedure of the people's Court (for trial implementation) formulated by the Supreme people's Court. The formal trial in the whole country was carried out on October 1, 2010. "1. This paper chooses the reform of sentencing standardization as the topic, and tries to study the gains and losses of the current reform of sentencing standardization in our country. It also focuses on the exploration and successful experience of the typical countries of Anglo-American law system and continental law system in the standardization of sentencing, in order to provide help for the judicial reform of our country. This article is divided into four chapters, the first chapter is the introduction of sentencing standardization. First of all, the concept of standardization of sentencing is introduced and analyzed. Secondly, the significance and connotation of sentencing standardization are also involved in this chapter. The reform of sentencing standardization carried out recently in our country should be paid more attention to. The basic concept and value of the standardization of sentencing must be explained by analyzing the relevant contents of the reform of sentencing standardization. The second chapter is the defect that our country sentencing standardization reform faces. It is positive to promote the reform of sentencing standardization in itself, but at present, there are many defects in the reform of sentencing standardization in our country, such as substance, procedure and value. These shortcomings will constrain the process of reform. The third chapter mainly introduces the status quo and achievements of the standard reform of sentencing in the typical countries of common law system and civil law system. The main characteristic of sentencing standardization in the United States is that the promulgation of sentencing Guide is of guiding significance, and the completely independent sentencing procedure provides a good platform for the sentencing activities of judges. German sentencing standardization is a typical continental law system of conviction and sentencing in one trial mode, this model has advantages, but also has significant drawbacks. The differences between the two legal systems in sentencing standardization are worthy of reference in the reform of sentencing standardization in China. The fourth chapter puts forward some thoughts on how to perfect the reform of sentencing standardization. First of all, the establishment of sentencing benchmark penalty should be more reasonable; establish a perfect case guidance system, which is from the perspective of the entity to perfect the standardized reform of sentencing thinking. From the point of view of procedure, the independent sentencing procedure should be established step by step.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.13

【参考文献】