刑罚个别化视野下的量刑规范化问题研究

发布时间：2018-12-06 22:16

【摘要】：刑罚个别化的概念必须从现代刑法的立场出发,反映现代刑法的精神。据此,可以说,要准确揭示刑罚个别化的内涵,一要将个别化的基础奠定在刑罚报应与预防相统一的原则上,二要在个别化中将犯罪情况和犯罪人情况作为两个缺一不可的考虑因素进行综合考虑。由此可知,刑罚个别化,是根据报应与预防的需要既考虑犯罪的社会危害程度,也考虑犯罪人的人身危险性的刑罚原则。它强调是对犯罪人进行刑罚处罚时,要做到针对具体案情具体分析。量刑规范化是对“量刑”的规范化,它将抽象的法律条文和具体的案情相结合,将量刑理论化的过程。它是在尊重量刑实体本质,遵循量刑量化规律的前提下,通过设置和适用完备的刑事程序,使量刑产生出公正有效且符合量刑目的的庭审判决。最高人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》中指出：此意见的制定宗旨是为了规范法官自由裁量权,实现量刑均衡,确保罪行相适应原则的正确实施。量刑规范化与刑罚个别化即存在着统一,当然也存在冲突,它们之间的冲突必然会影响量刑规范化的顺利开展。量刑规范化与刑罚个别化存在统一和冲突。其统一性表现为：第一、两者最终的衡量标准都是公平和正义；第二、两者都是为了保障法官自由裁量权的正确行使；第三、量刑规范化的过程就是刑罚个别化规范的过程。其冲突具体表现为：一是两者最初产生的原因不同；二是量刑的依据不同；三是量刑方法不同；四是着眼点不同；五是量刑体现的精神有所不同；六是对法官自由裁量权的态度不同。我国的量刑规范化的改革,以及解决其与刑罚个别化的冲突的办法可借鉴美国的量刑模式。其具体措施包括：第一、法官自由裁量权的规制;第二、量刑程序的相对独立化：第三、建立指导性的司法解释；第四、完善案例指导制度；第五、刑事裁判书的改革以及量刑建议的制度化。
[Abstract]:The concept of individualization of penalty must reflect the spirit of modern criminal law from the standpoint of modern criminal law. On the basis of this, it can be said that the connotation of individualization of punishment should be revealed accurately. First, the foundation of individualization should be laid on the principle of the unity of punishment retribution and prevention. Secondly, we should consider crime and offender as two indispensable factors in individualization. It can be seen that the individualization of punishment is based on the principle of punishment which not only considers the degree of social harm of crime but also considers the personal dangerousness of the offender according to the need of retribution and prevention. It emphasizes that the criminal punishment should be specific to the specific circumstances of the case. The standardization of sentencing is the standardization of sentencing, which combines abstract legal provisions with concrete cases and theorizes sentencing. Under the premise of respecting the essence of sentencing entity and following the law of quantification of sentencing, it can produce a fair and effective trial judgment in accordance with the purpose of sentencing by setting up and applying complete criminal procedure. The Supreme people's Court's opinion on sentencing guidance (trial) points out that the purpose of formulating this opinion is to standardize the discretion of judges, to achieve a balance of sentencing, and to ensure the correct implementation of the principle of adaptation of crimes. The standardization of sentencing and the individualization of punishment are unified, and of course there are conflicts. The conflicts between them will inevitably affect the smooth development of the standardization of sentencing. There is unity and conflict between sentencing standardization and penalty individualization. Its unity is shown as follows: first, the ultimate measure of both is fairness and justice; second, both are to ensure the correct exercise of the judge's discretion; third, the process of sentencing standardization is the process of individualization of punishment. The conflict is manifested in the following aspects: first, the reasons are different; second, the basis of sentencing is different; third, the method of sentencing is different; fourth, the point of view is different; fifth, the spirit of sentencing is different; Sixth, the attitude towards the discretion of judges is different. The reform of sentencing standardization in our country and the method to solve the conflict between it and penalty individualization can draw lessons from the sentencing model of the United States. The specific measures include: first, the regulation of the discretion of judges; second, the relative independence of sentencing procedures; third, the establishment of a guiding judicial interpretation; fourth, the improvement of the case guidance system; Fifth, the reform of criminal judgment and the institutionalization of sentencing recommendations.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.13

【参考文献】