量刑规范化探析

IV摘 要 摘 要 量刑规范化就是指依靠规范量刑主体的量刑活动， 使刑罚的裁量符合一定的规则和标准，使之更具有合理性、透明性和可预测性，以更好实现量刑公正、合理的目的。量刑规范化是个系统化的过程，它的主体是审判人员，客体是审判人员的量刑活动，包括实体量刑规范化和程序量刑规范化两个方面。 在量刑过程中， 只有实体和程序统一协调，有机组合，才能达到量刑公正、合理的目的。量刑规范化的核心是行使权力规范化。 本文的写作思路是从量刑规范化的概念入手，分析量刑规范化的实质，并就国内外有关量刑规范化的理论和实践进行比较分析， 而后就我国量刑不规范的表现及原因进行分析，最后提出关于我国量刑规范化问题完善的建议。全文除引言和结语外，共分五个部分。 第一部分就量刑规范化的概念和实质进行分析。 量刑规范化就是指依靠规范量刑主体的量刑活动，使刑罚的裁量符合一定的规则和标准，使之更具有合理性、透明性和可预测性，以更好实现量刑公正、合理的目的。量刑规范化包括实体量刑规范化和程序量刑规范化两个方面。实体量刑规范化是指量刑原则的明确性，量刑方法的科学性和量刑结果的相对精确性。 程序量刑规范化是指量刑程序要体现保障性、 相对独立性、 公平性、控权性、公开性的特点。量刑规范化的核心在于权力行使的规范化，即对自由裁量权的合理限制。 第二部分阐述了量刑规范化的意义和理论依据。量刑规范化是实现司法公正、实现社会公平正义的必要保证，也是提高量刑的可预测性的必要措施。刑法理论中关于刑罚的目的主要有报应理论、预防理论和兼顾报应理论和预防理论的折衷刑罚理论。报应理论的特点是，以因果报应为立论，主张有犯罪才予以处罚，刑罚目的在于报复与惩罚犯罪所带来的危害，以恢复被犯罪所侵害的社会公共秩序和人们对于规范的信赖感。这种因果报应观念决定了刑罚的结果取决于犯罪的危害性程度， 法官在量刑时根据犯罪的危害性程度决定刑罚的种类和轻重。预防理论也称相对理论，其基本意思是为了使将来没有犯罪发生而对犯罪进行惩罚。贝卡利亚、边沁、龙勃罗梭等伟大思想先驱者的言论和V著作中，都提到了将预防作为刑罚目的的意义。折衷论认为，刑罚目的既有报复惩罚的因素，又有预防改造的内容。折衷论融合了报应与预防，一定程度上改进了报应理论和预防理论的不足之处，成为刑罚根据学说的主流。 第三部分就国内外有关量刑规范化的理论和实践进行比较分析。 分别就美国和德国的立法实践和国外的程序规则进行了剖析，并就国内关于量刑规范化的现状进行了分析。 第四部分列举和分析了我国量刑不规范的表现及原因。 我国量刑不规范主要表现在同罪异罚、异罪同罚和刑罪不相称，处刑畸轻畸重三个方面。造成这些量刑不规范的原因，在立法上主要有刑法中规定的法定刑幅度过大、部分法定刑设置不合理、刑罚轻重配置不协调、量刑情节规定过于笼统、法官自由裁量权弹性幅度过大、量刑原则缺乏可操作性等几个方面。 司法上的原因有审判理念不均衡、司法实践经验未得到有效的规范与总结、 法官素质不高滥用自由裁量权、量刑方法不科学、量刑程序不规范等几个方面。 第五部分提出了量刑规范化的指导原则和一些建议。量刑规范化的指导原则，即合法性、罪刑均衡和有限的刑罚个别化。量刑规范化在立法上要缩小法定刑幅度、细化量刑情节的调节幅度。在司法上，要规范量刑方法、完善量刑程序。 关键词：量刑， 规范化，自由裁量权，实体规范化，程序规范化 VIABSTRACT ABSTRACT Standardization of penalty measurement refers to the procession t in which penalty measurement conforms to given rules and norms to create the rationality, openness and predictability of penalty measurement, thus to realize the justice and rationality of penalty measurement. Standardization of penalty measurement is a systematic process. Its subject is judicial officer and its object is trial activity. Standardization of penalty measurement includes substantive standardization and procedural standardization. In the procession of penalty measurement, in order to realize the justice and rationality of penalty measurement, substantive and procedural regulations must be unified and coordinated. The core of standardization of penalty measurement is the standardization of exercise of powers. The dissertation begins with the concept of standardization of penalty measurement, then analyzes its essence，it compares the theory and practices concerning standardization of penalty measurement both in China and foreign countries. And then demonstrates the standardization of penalty measurement in China and interprets its reasons. And then In the end, it lists the suggestions on the improvement of penalty measurement. The dissertation includes 5 chapters excluding the Introduction and conclusion. Chapter I interprets the concept and essence of standardization of penalty measurement. Standardization of penalty measurement refers to the procession t in which penalty measurement conforms to given rules and norms to create the rationality, openness and predictability of penalty measurement, thus to realize the justice and rationality of penalty measurement. Standardization of penalty measurement includes substantive standardization and procedural standardization. Substantive standardization of penalty measurement refers to the definiteness of penalty measurement principles, the scientificity of penalty measurement methods and comparative accuracy of penalty measurement results. Procedural VIIstandardization of penalty measurement refers to the penalty measurement procedure which can embody supportability, comparative independence, justice, control of powers and publicity. The core of standardization of penalty measurement is the standardization of exercise of powers, i.e. the rational l restrictions of powers. Chapter II interprets the values and theoretical basis of standardization of penalty measurement. It can ensure to realize judicial fairness and social equity. It is a necessary measure to enhance the predictability of penalty. In theory the purpose of penalty mainly concludes retribution theory, prevention theory, and compromise theory, which covers the 2 theories above. The retribution theory, in the basis of retribution, argues that punishment only imposed on crime, the purposes of punishment are retribution and punishment against the criminal damages, and recovery of public order and peoples reliability on the norm damaged by crime. According to the retribution theory, the punishment should be consistent with the harmful levels of crime. Judges decides the variety and severity of the punishment according to the harmful levels of crime. Prevention theory, also named relativity theory insists that punishment is imposed in order to eliminate the crime in the future. It has been involved in the speech and works of Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Lombroso. Compromise theory argues that the purposes of punishment contain both the factor of retribution punishment contents of prevention and redevelopment. The compromise the