中国式“量刑指南”能走多远——以美国联邦量刑指南的命运为参照的分析
汪贻飞; 1:北京大学法学院 摘要(Abstract)：

美国联邦量刑指南为"约束法官量刑裁量权"而创制,实施多年之后,却又因"过于机械"、"过分地捆住法官手脚"而从"强制性"走向"参考性"。与美国联邦量刑指南相比,中国式"量刑指南"在立法技术以及科学性上差距甚远;在承载的任务上,却远远超过了美国联邦量刑指南。从实际效果来看,中国式"量刑指南"既无法防止司法腐败(特别是量刑腐败),也无助于提升司法公信力。就规范和约束法官量刑裁量权而言,以"量刑指南"为代表的"规则控制"模式的效果十分有限,而"诉权控制"可能更富成效。

关键词(KeyWords)： 量刑指南;;自由裁量权;;规则控制;;诉权控制

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 汪贻飞;

Email:


参考文献(References)： [2]参见《最高人民法院关于印发<人民法院第三个五年改革纲要(2009-2013)>的通知》。[1]See generally Kate Stith&Josea Cabranes,Fear ofJudging:Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts,at9-37(1998).[2]U.S.Sentencing Guidelines Manual(1987).[3]See Stith&Cabranes,Fear ofJudging:Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts,at78-103(1998).[1]United States v.Booker,543U.S.220,245-46(2005).[2]Kate Stith&Jose A.Cabranes,Judging under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,91NW.U.L.Rev.1247-1248(1997).But see Frank O.Bowman,III,FearofLaw:Thoughts on FearofJudging and the State ofthe Federal Sentencing Guidelines,44St.Louis U.L.J.299,313-14(2000)(arguing that it is misleading to assert that federal judges had expansive criminal sentencing discretion before the rehabilitative i-deal came into vogue because the federal courts played a very minor role in prosecuting crimes for most of the nineteenth century).[3]Marvin E.Frankel,Criminal Sentences:LawWithout Order,Published by Hilland Wang,NEW YORK,1972,pp89.[4]同上,pp5-6。[5]同上,pp6。[6]Stith&Cabranes,Judging under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,91NW.U.L.Rev,at1248-49.[7]Stith&Cabranes,Judging under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,91NW.U.L.Rev,at1252.[8]同上。[9]Kate Stith&Steve Y.Koh,The Politics ofSentencing Reform:The Legislative History ofthe Federal Sentencing Guidelines,28WAKE FORESTL.REV.223,223-57(1993).10同上。11同上。12同上,第231页。[1]Douglas A.Berman,ACommon Lawfor This Age ofFederal Sentencing:The Opportunity and Need for Judicial Lawmaking,11STAN.L.&POL’Y REV.93,95nn.18&20(1999)(listing studies that demonstrate sentencing disparities due to such variables).[2]Kate Stith&Steve Y.Koh,The Politics ofSentencing Reform:The Legislative History ofthe Federal Sentencing Guidelines,28WAKE FORESTL.REV.227(1993).[3]Sentencing Reform Act of1984,Pub.L.No.98-473,98Stat.1987(codified as amended in scattered sections of18and28U.S.C.).[4]Stephen Breyer,The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Key Compromises Upon Which They Rest,17HOFSTRA L.REV.1,4(1988).[5]S.REP.NO.98-225,at3221(1983).[6]S.REP.NO.98-225,at3224.[7]Michael H.Tonry,The Sentencing Commission in Sentencing Reform,7HOFSTRA L.REV.315,323(1978)[8]133CONG.REC.26,372(statement of Rep.Synar).Another congressman declared that these guidelines would represent“the most dramatic change in our Nation's history”in terms of the federal criminal justice system.Id.at26,367(statement of Rep.Conyers).[1]U.S.SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL(2008).[2]U.S.SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL,Ch.5,Pt.A(2008).[3]28U.S.C.§994(b)(2)(2006).This twenty-five percent requirement does not apply,however,when the result would be a sen-tencing range of less than six months.Id.[4]See18U.S.C.§3553(b)(2006);U.S.SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL§§5K1.1-3.1(2008).[5]U.S.SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL§5H1.12(2008).[7]The Philip D.Reed Lecture Series,Panel Discussion:Federal Sentencing Under“Advisory”Guidelines:Observations by District Judges,75FORDHAML.REV.1,5(2006)[hereinafter Panel Discussion](statement of Judge Gertner).[8]The Philip D.Reed Lecture Series,Panel Discussion:Federal Sentencing Under“Advisory”Guidelines:Observations by District Judges,75FORDHAML.REV.1,4(2006)[hereinafter Panel Discussion](statement of Judge Adelman).[9]Stephen A.Saltzburg,Daniel J.Capra,American Criminal Procedure(Eight Editions),Thomson West,pp1470.10United States Sentencing Commission,GUIDELINES MANUAL8(1987).11Federal Sentencing Guideline§§6B1.1-3(Introductory Comments).[1]Report ofthe Federal Court Study Committee,138(April1990).[2]Stephen A.Saltzburg,Daniel J.Capra,American Criminal Procedure(Eight Editions),Thomson West,pp1470.[3]同上。[4]Booker,543U.S.at228(quoting Blakely,542U.S.at303).[5]见上注(citing18U.S.C.§3742(e)(2000and Supp.IV)).[6]Lynn Adelman,Federal Sentencing Survey:Rita,District Court Discretion,and Fairness in Federal Sentencing,85DENV.U.L.REV.51,51-52(2007).[7]See Gall v.United States,128S.Ct.586(2007).[2]United States v.Booker,543U.S.220,297(2005)(Stevens,J.,dissenting).[3]Booker,543U.S.at305(Scalia,J.,dissenting).[1]Report ofthe Federal Court Study Committee,138(April1990).[2]The Philip D.Reed Lecture Series,Panel Discussion:Federal Sentencing Under“Advisory”Guidelines:Observations by District Judges,75FORDHAML.REV.1,5(2006)[hereinafter Panel Discussion](statement of Judge Gertner).[3]The Philip D.Reed Lecture Series,Panel Discussion:Federal Sentencing Under“Advisory”Guidelines:Observations by District Judges,75FORDHAML.REV.1,4(2006)[hereinafter Panel Discussion](statement of Judge Adelman).[1]Marvin E.Frankel,Lawless In Sentencing,Cincinnati LawReview,Volum41,1972,No.1.[1]参见:http://news.sina.com.cn/z/fjzbc/index.shtml,最后一次登陆时间2009年9月24日。[2]高星编辑:《法院有关负责人就陈同海受贿案宣判答记者问》,http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1026/9658646.html,最后一次登陆时间2009年9月28日。[3]关于最高人民法院量刑实体改革模式的资料,请参见“严格程序规范量刑确保公正———最高人民法院刑三庭负责人答记者问”,载《人民法院报》2009年6月1日。[1]“严格程序规范量刑确保公正———最高人民法院刑三庭负责人答记者问”,载《人民法院报》2009-06-01。[2]赵凌、王存福:“法官量刑‘独断’将被打破”,载《南方周末》2009-07-08。[3][美]爱伦.豪切斯泰勒.斯黛丽、南希.弗兰克:《美国刑事法院诉讼程序》,陈卫东、徐美君译,何家弘校,中国人民大学出版社2001年版。[4]储槐植:《美国刑法》(第3版),北京大学出版社2005年版。[5]杜晓:“‘同罪不同罚’引质疑中国量刑改革彰显观念之变”,载《法制日报》2009-06-24。[6]陈杰人:“司法公信要靠规范量刑来提升”,载《法制日报》2009-08-12。[7]“中国量刑指南有望今年出台聚焦中国量刑指南姜堰范本”,载《法制日报周末版》2009-01-02。[8]刘春雷、张文宇:“‘电脑量刑’面世历程”,载《法律与生活》2004年9月下半月刊。[9][美]小奥利弗.温德尔.霍姆斯:《普通法》,冉昊、姚中秋译,中国政法大学出版社2006年版。[10]季卫东:“电脑量刑面面观”,载《政法论坛》2007年第1期。[11]刘青、张宝玲:“司法公信力问题研究”,载《法制与社会》2007年第2期。[12]关玫:“司法公信力初论———概念、类型与特征”,载《法制与社会发展》2005年第4期。[13]陈兴良:《刑法的人性基础》,中国方正出版社1996年版。[14][美]《美国量刑指南》,北大翻译组译,北京大学出版社1995年版。[15][美]本杰明.卡多佐:《司法过程的性质》,苏力译,商务印书馆2000年版.[16]虞平:“量刑与刑罚的量化”,载《法学家》2007年第2期。