借鉴与反思:我国相对独立量刑程序之确立  

Reference and Reflection: the Establishment of Relatively Independent Sentencing Procedure in China

作　　者：刘作凌[1] 

机构地区：[1]湖南商学院法学院,湖南长沙410205

出　　处：《湖南商学院学报》2011年第4期95-100,共6页Journal of Hunan Business College

基　　金：教育部2010年人文社科基金青年项目<欧洲人权法中的公正审判权制度研究>(编号:10YJC820079)

摘　　要：我国传统刑事审判没有明确区分定罪阶段和量刑阶段,这在一定程度上影响了量刑的公开透明性以及量刑调查与辩论的充分性,难以保证量刑的公正性和裁判的说服力。因此,在立足我国现行刑事司法政策、立法与司法实践的基础上,借鉴英美等国量刑程序制度的合理内核,确立"相对独立"的量刑程序,是实现司法公正的必然要求。最高人民法院《关于规范量刑程序若干问题的意见》在全国的试行,标志着相对独立的量刑程序在我国正式确立。该司法解释对刑事庭审案件有区别地设置量刑审理程序;确立了检察机关的量刑建议制度、被告方和被害方量刑意见制度、裁判方说明理由制度等等,但这一改革方案仍需在实践中进一步探索与完善。China＇s traditional criminal trial did not clearly distinguish between the penalty phase and sentencing phase. To some extent, this has affected the open and transparent sentencing and adequacy of sentencing investigation and sentencing debate. It is difficult to guarantee the fairness of sentencing and the convincing of judges. Therefore, on the basis of the existing criminal justice policy, legislation and the judicial practice, we can learn from some foreign countries＇ sentencing procedures, such as the UK, America and so on. The reasonable reference will benefit a lot for building a relatively independent sentencing procedure with Chinese characteristics. The trial of Opinions on Several issues of regulating sentencing procedures by Supreme People＇s Court marks that the independent sentencing procedure has been formally established in China. The judicial interpretation sets different sentencing procedures on criminal court cases, establishing the system of the prosecution＇s sentencing recommendation, the defendant and victim＇s sentencing opinion and the reasons of the judges, etc. However, this reform program needs to be further explored and improved in practice.

关 键 词：相对独立的量刑程序 量刑建议 量刑调查 量刑辩论 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]