我国量刑均衡问题探析

发布时间：2019-06-03 00:17

【摘要】：在现代法治社会的背景下，正确定罪和合理量刑是对法官及整个司法审判活动的最基本要求。正确定罪是合理量刑的前提和基础，合理的量刑是正确定罪所追求的目标和效果，也带给犯罪人、被害人和社会公众以最直观、最深切的感受和体会，直接向社会昭显公平和正义。然而在司法实践中，量刑失衡现象却日益严重。实际上，量刑失衡问题是一个世界性的难题，各国的理论界和实务界在很早以前就对此进行了很多有益的探索与尝试。本文主要分为引言、正文和结语三大部分，其中正文又包括四小部分。在引言中，首先说明了选题意义，指出研究量刑均衡问题的必要性和重要性；进而，对选题的研究现状进行了述评，从整体上介绍了学术界对于量刑均衡问题的研究成果及方向，并对相关研究成果进行了简单的总结；最后，指出选题的研究方法，运用实证研究和比较分析等多种研究方法。正文第一部分对量刑均衡进行概述，主要包括量刑均衡的概念界说、具体内容、理论基础和遵循原则四个方面。因为对“均衡”一词的理解不同，所以关于量刑均衡的概念，至今还没有一个统一或权威的解释。量刑均衡实质上包括个案量刑均衡与整体量刑均衡，量刑均衡的理想状态就是实现时间上的量刑均衡和空间上的量刑均衡。量刑均衡的直接理论依据是罪刑均衡原则。在我国，量刑均衡所遵循的量刑原则一直是颇具争议性的问题。第二部分介绍了量刑均衡的现状——量刑失衡问题，主要包括量刑失衡的表现形式、危害和原因。量刑失衡主要表现为同一法院的不同法官之间、同一审级的不同法院之间、不同审级的法院之间，对相似个案的量刑出现不同程度的偏差和不平衡。量刑失衡的危害在于：它不仅违反刑法基本原则、不利于刑罚目的实现，而且是对刑法价值的破坏和宪法精神的违背；它不仅浪费司法资源，助长腐败风气，，而且是对刑罚正义的妨害和司法权威的挑战。通过分析我国量刑失衡现象不断出现的原因，可以发现是多方面原因综合作用的结果，如：立法的抽象、模糊和不确定，法定刑幅度过于宽泛；重视定罪、轻忽量刑这一传统观念根深蒂固、影响深远，忽视对个案之间的考察对比，量刑的整体失衡更为严重；审判体制特殊，法院内部职权分工不合理，审与判相分离；法官个人专业水平、业务能力不同，自由裁量权行使不合理。另外，不同历史时期，国家的发展态势、社会的治安状况必然不同，刑事政策也会随之变更，还有社会舆论带来的压力等等，都可能造成量刑的不均衡。第三部分主要论述国外两大法系在量刑均衡问题上分别采用何种量刑模式及其对我国的借鉴意义。通过比较可以发现，英美法系国家侧重追求量刑的公正性和程序的正当性，追求个案的公正。而大陆法系更注重实体裁判结果的正义与否，以发现案件事实为追求目标，对程序问题相对不够重视。然而，目前的发展趋势是两大法系的量刑模式互相借鉴、渐趋融合。本文在第四部分中，从立法层面和司法层面提出了实现量刑均衡的完善建议。本文最后作了总结，希望能以微薄之力为我国量刑均衡化发展做出一点贡献，相关理论将在不断地批判中得到发展，在实践中得到检验。也对自己今后的学习和研究方向作以期冀。
[Abstract]:In the context of the modern rule of law society, the right conviction and reasonable sentencing are the most basic requirements for the judge and the whole judicial trial. The right conviction is the premise and foundation of the reasonable sentencing, and the reasonable sentencing is the goal and the effect pursued by the right conviction, and also brings the offenders, the victims and the public with the most direct and deepest feelings and experiences, and directly shows justice and justice to the society. However, in the practice of judicial practice, the phenomenon of sentencing imbalance is becoming more and more serious. In fact, the problem of the imbalance of sentencing is a worldwide problem. This paper is mainly divided into three parts: the introduction, the text and the conclusion. The text also includes four small parts. In the introduction, the paper first explains the significance of the topic, points out the necessity and importance of the study of the problem of sentencing balance, and then makes a review of the research status of the selected topic, and introduces the research results of the academic circle on the problem of sentencing balance in the whole. In the end, the author points out the research method, the application of the empirical research and the comparative analysis and so on. The first part of the text provides an overview of the balance of sentencing, which mainly includes the concept of the balance of sentencing, the concrete content, the theoretical foundation and the follow-up. There are four aspects. Since the understanding of the term ""equalization"" is different, the concept of sentencing balance has not yet been unified or The balance of the sentencing balance and the overall sentencing balance, the ideal state of the balance of sentencing is the balance of sentencing and the space in the realization time. The balance of the sentencing balance and the direct theoretical basis of the balance of sentencing is the crime. In China, the principle of sentencing balance is always a controversial principle. The second part introduces the status of the balance of sentencing and the problem of the balance of sentencing, which mainly includes the expression of the imbalance of sentencing. The balance of sentencing is mainly represented by the different judges of the same court, between different courts of the same level, and between the courts of different levels, the sentencing of similar cases varies to a different extent The harm of the balance of sentencing is that it not only violates the basic principles of the criminal law, is not conducive to the realization of the purpose of the penalty, but also the breach of the value of the criminal law and the violation of the constitution spirit; it not only wastes the judicial resources, promotes the culture of corruption, but also the obstruction to the justice of the penalty. The challenge of the judicial authority is to find out the result of the comprehensive effect of the multiple reasons, such as the abstract, the fuzzy and the uncertainty of the legislation, the scope of the legal punishment is too broad, and the traditional idea of the conviction and the light of the sentencing is the root of the traditional idea. On the other hand, far-reaching influence and neglect of the examination and comparison between the cases, the overall imbalance of the sentencing is more serious; the trial system is special, the division of the internal powers of the court is not reasonable, and the judgment and judgment are separated; the individual professional level of the judge and the business ability are different and the freedom is cut In addition, different historical periods, the development situation of the country, the social security situation must be different, the criminal policy will also change, and the pressure of the public opinion can be made. The third part mainly discusses the sentencing mode of the two legal systems in foreign countries and the balance of sentencing. By comparison, it can be found that the common law system countries focus on the fairness and the proper procedure of the pursuit of sentencing. The civil law system is more focused on the justice of the outcome of the entity's decision, in order to find the facts of the case as the pursuit of the goal, to the course However, the current development trend is the sentencing model of the two legal systems. In the fourth part, it is proposed from the legislative level and the judicial level. In this paper, we sum up and hope to make a little contribution to the development of sentencing balance in China, and the relevant theories will be in constant criticism. Has been developed and has been tested in practice.
【学位授予单位】：河南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.13

【参考文献】