發(fā)布時間：2018-06-11 21:47

  本文選題：量刑程序 + 刑罰個別化　； 參考：《吉林大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國現(xiàn)行的由最高人民法院所推行的相對獨立的量刑程序，是一個在定罪程序結(jié)束的基礎之上，在相對獨立的時間和空間范圍內(nèi)，圍繞如何確定被告人具體刑罰而進行的專門的審判程序。量刑程序之所以能夠從定罪程序中分離出來，是因為其有著區(qū)別于定罪程序的價值基礎和審判方式，而這種獨特的審判方式又是通過具體的證據(jù)規(guī)則體現(xiàn)出來的。我國2012年《刑事訴訟法》的修改首次以立法的形式明確了量刑事實、證據(jù)的地位，但由于缺乏進一步的規(guī)定和完善，，未能制定出一套適用于量刑程序的獨立的證據(jù)規(guī)則，導致量刑程序與定罪程序的區(qū)分不夠明確，使得相對獨立的量刑程序缺乏制度上的保障。因此，對量刑程序中證據(jù)規(guī)則的探討可以說是研究量刑程序的著眼點與核心。 關于量刑程序證據(jù)規(guī)則提出的理論背景，可以從“三個轉(zhuǎn)化”的角度來理解：一是由“刑罰報應論”向“刑罰目的論”的轉(zhuǎn)化；二是由“準確定罪”向“刑罰個別化”的轉(zhuǎn)化；三是由“無罪推定原則主導”向“無罪推定原則暫時失效”的轉(zhuǎn)化。這三個轉(zhuǎn)化為量刑證據(jù)規(guī)則的設置奠定了基礎，體現(xiàn)了量刑程序的核心價值導向，進而揭示出了量刑證據(jù)規(guī)則所必須遵循的目標和原則。同時，三個轉(zhuǎn)化作為筆者構(gòu)建量刑證據(jù)規(guī)則的基石，貫穿于研討量刑證據(jù)規(guī)則問題的始末，起著重要的指導作用。 量刑證據(jù)是指僅能在量刑程序中使用的，只能用以確定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人判處具體刑罰的各種事實材料。此外，量刑證據(jù)與定罪證據(jù)的區(qū)別也是厘清量刑證據(jù)概念的關鍵所在。具體而言，體現(xiàn)在以下三個方面：首先是二者的目的不同，定罪證據(jù)的目的旨在對被告人進行準確的定罪，而量刑證據(jù)則旨在實現(xiàn)刑罰的個別化；其次是二者是否受無罪推定原則的約束不同，定罪證據(jù)受到無罪推定原則的約束，而量刑證據(jù)則可以暫時不受該原則的約束；最后是二者的依據(jù)不同，定罪證據(jù)依據(jù)的是與犯罪構(gòu)成要件相關的定罪信息，量刑證據(jù)則是依據(jù)從重、從輕、減輕或者是免除刑事處罰的量刑信息。 由于無罪推定原則的暫時失效和控辯雙方平等訴訟地位的形成，量刑程序不再涉及對被告一方的特殊保護。同時，為了能夠充分體現(xiàn)出被告人人身危險性和其犯罪行為的社會危害性，量刑證據(jù)的關聯(lián)性屬性應予以適當放寬。因此，筆者認為在量刑程序中應當擴大證據(jù)的范圍，降低相應的證據(jù)準入規(guī)則以保障量刑證據(jù)的全面收集。概括起來主要體現(xiàn)在以下三個方面：一是傳聞證據(jù)的準入；二是品格證據(jù)的準入；三是非法證據(jù)的有條件準入。 社會調(diào)查報告作為一種能夠影響刑罰輕重的材料，其法律定位問題亟待明確。只有厘清社會調(diào)查報告的法律屬性，才能夠確定其法律效果以及對訴訟各方的約束力，使得該制度的運行具有現(xiàn)實性和可操作性。筆者認為，為了充分發(fā)揮社會調(diào)查報告在量刑程序中的作用，應當賦予其證據(jù)的屬性，并作為量刑證據(jù)的一種納入到量刑證據(jù)的范疇之中。原因有三：其一是2012年的《刑事訴訟法》對證據(jù)概念的規(guī)定應該做出擴張解釋；其二是傳統(tǒng)的證據(jù)學理論的證據(jù)三性，并不能當然的適用于量刑證據(jù)之中；其三是從社會調(diào)查報告的功能與作用上看，應將其作為證據(jù)使用以起到重要的補充作用。 量刑證明是量刑證據(jù)規(guī)則的重要內(nèi)容之一，本文從證明對象、證明責任、證明標準和證明方法這四個方面對量刑程序的證明規(guī)則進行探討。筆者將證明對象限定為量刑事實：即用以說明被告人犯罪行為的嚴重程度，并以此決定對被告人是否判處刑罰以及判處何種刑罰的各種事實情況。對于證明責任，基于被告人權(quán)利已經(jīng)在定罪程序中得到了以最大限度的保障，控辯雙方的對抗性特征已經(jīng)受到了削弱。因此，筆者主張在量刑程序中采用“誰主張，誰舉證”的原則，即被告人同公訴機關分別就自己的主張承擔舉證責任。筆者主張在量刑程序中設立獨立于定罪程序的證明標準，并根據(jù)不同的量刑證明對象，適用不同的證明標準。具體而言，對于法定的量刑事實采用清楚可信的證明標準，對酌定事實采用優(yōu)勢證據(jù)標準。最后在量刑程序證明方法上，筆者主張適用自由證明的證明方法，以推動庭審的高效進行。
[Abstract]:The relative independent sentencing procedure carried out by the Supreme People's court in our country is a special trial procedure on how to determine the specific penalty of the accused on the basis of the end of the conviction procedure in a relatively independent time and space. The reason why the sentence of sentencing can be separated from the convictions procedure is that of the procedure of sentencing. Because it has the value basis and the way of judgment which is different from the convictions procedure, the unique way of trial is reflected by the specific rules of evidence. In 2012, the amendment of the criminal procedure law of China was first defined in the form of legislation for the fact of sentencing, the status of evidence, but the lack of further regulations and perfection. A set of independent evidence rules applicable to the sentencing procedure has been set up, which leads to the lack of clear distinction between the sentencing procedure and the convictions procedure, which makes the relative independent sentencing procedure lack of institutional guarantee. Therefore, the discussion of the rules of evidence in the sentencing procedure can be said to be the focus and the core of the study of the sentencing procedure.
The theoretical background of the rule of evidence for sentencing procedure can be understood from the angle of "three transformations": one is the transformation from "penalty retribution theory" to "penalty objective theory"; two is the transformation from "accurate conviction" to "penalty individualization"; and three is "presumption of innocence principle" to "the principle of presumption of innocence temporarily". These three transformations have laid the foundation for the setting of the rules of sentencing evidence, which embodies the core value orientation of the sentencing procedure, and then reveals the goals and principles that the rules of sentencing evidence must follow. At the same time, the three transformation is the cornerstone of the author's rule of sentencing evidence, which runs through the discussion of the rules of sentencing evidence. The beginning and the end played an important guiding role.
The sentencing evidence refers to the fact that the criminal suspects can only be used to determine the criminal suspects and the defendants are sentenced to specific penalties. In addition, the difference between the sentencing evidence and the convicted evidence is also the key to the clarification of the concept of the sentencing evidence. In particular, the following three aspects are reflected in the following aspects: first, the purposes of the two are different, The purpose of the conviction evidence is to make an accurate conviction for the defendant, and the sentencing evidence is aimed at realizing the individualization of the penalty; the second is whether the two are restricted by the principle of presumption of innocence, the evidence of the conviction is bound by the principle of presumption of innocence, and the sentencing evidence can not be restricted by the principle for the time being; finally, the basis of the two party is the basis. In different cases, the evidence of convictions is based on the conviction information related to the constitutive elements of the crime, and the sentencing evidence is based on heavy, light, mitigated or exempted from criminal punishment.
Because of the temporary failure of the principle of presumption of innocence and the formation of the equal litigation status of the two parties, the procedure of sentencing is no longer involved in the special protection of the defendant. At the same time, in order to fully reflect the danger of the defendant and the social harmfulness of his criminal behavior, the relevance attribute of the sentencing evidence should be appropriately relaxed. Therefore, the author It is believed that the scope of evidence should be expanded in the sentencing procedure, and the relevant rules of admittance should be reduced to ensure the comprehensive collection of sentencing evidence. It is summarized mainly in the following three aspects: first, the admittance of hearsay evidence; the two is the admittance of character evidence; and three is the conditional access of illegal evidence.
As a material that can affect the severity of the penalty, the social investigation report needs to be clearly defined. Only by clarifying the legal attributes of the social investigation report can it determine its legal effect and the binding force to the parties, making the operation of the system realistic and operable. The role of the investigation report in the sentencing procedure should be given the attribute of the evidence and as a kind of sentencing evidence into the category of sentencing evidence. There are three reasons: first, the criminal procedure law in 2012 should be expanded to explain the definition of the concept of evidence; and the other is the evidence of the traditional evidence theory. Of course, it can be applied to the evidence of sentencing; thirdly, it should be used as evidence to play an important supplementary role in the function and function of the social investigation report.
The proof of sentencing is one of the important contents of the rule of sentencing evidence. This article discusses the proof rules of the sentencing procedure from four aspects: the object of proof, the burden of proof, the standard of proof and the method of proof. The author will prove that the object is limited to the fact of sentencing: that is to explain the seriousness of the defendant's crime and to decide on the defendant Whether or not the facts of the punishment and what kind of punishment are imposed. For the burden of proof, the rights of the accused have been guaranteed to the maximum of the conviction procedure, and the antagonistic characteristics of the two parties have been weakened. Therefore, the author advocates the principle of "who advocates, who raises the proof" in the sentencing procedure, that is, the principle of being used in the sentencing procedure. The author holds the burden of proof with the public prosecutor on its own claims. The author advocates the establishment of a standard of proof independent of the conviction procedure in the sentencing procedure, and the application of different standard of proof according to the object of different sentencing proof. Finally, in the way of proving the sentencing procedure, the author advocates applying the method of proof of free proof to promote the efficient implementation of the trial.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 高通;;論我國社會調(diào)查報告制度的構(gòu)建[J];武陵學刊;2010年06期

2 汪貽飛;;論社會調(diào)查報告對我國量刑程序改革的借鑒[J];當代法學;2010年01期

3 陳瑞華;;定罪與量刑的程序關系模式[J];法律適用;2008年04期

4 陳衛(wèi)東;張佳華;;量刑程序改革語境中的量刑證據(jù)初探[J];證據(jù)科學;2009年01期

5 李玉萍;;量刑事實證明初論[J];證據(jù)科學;2009年01期

6 簡樂偉;;論量刑程序證明模式的選擇[J];證據(jù)科學;2010年04期

7 簡樂偉;;論量刑證據(jù)獨立性的基礎[J];證據(jù)科學;2011年05期

8 顧永忠;;從定罪的“證明標準”到定罪量刑的“證據(jù)標準”——新《刑事訴訟法》對定罪證明標準的豐富與發(fā)展[J];證據(jù)科學;2012年02期

9 熊秋紅;對刑事證明標準的思考——以刑事證明中的可能性和確定性為視角[J];法商研究;2003年01期

10 魏曉娜;;刑事訴訟中的實體正義[J];法學家;2005年01期

本文編號：2006810