量刑规范化制度的法理探究.docx

 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 28 量刑规范化制度的法理探究 摘 要 在我国司法实践中量刑失衡的现象一直就有，在我国不断深化法治理念的过程中，人民的法律意识不断得到提高并对发生在身边的量刑失衡现象越来越关注；而且随着媒体和各种网络平台的迅速发展，许多过去发生的或者正在发生的冤假错案不断被报道披露出来之后，社会各方也因此将目光聚集在法官的审判和量刑活动上，并对那些造成冤假错案的法官口诛笔伐。在过去，法官的量刑过程“秘而不宣”，依据过去的规定就会造成两种不同的结果：“便宜”了徇私枉法的法官和委屈了依法办案的法官，因为法官的心证和裁量工作的实质是法官自己主观思考的过程，它是法官将将案件事实综合考量之后依据法律依据来定罪量刑的过程，那么在出现了“同案不同判”的现象时，法官则应当如何来证明自己的心证和裁量活动？答案就是让法官的量刑活动有精确的法可依。因此，最高人民法院在第三个五年改革纲要中提出要将量刑规范化作为改革的重要内容，目的就是要减少法官在审理案件的过程中的出现的滥用自由裁量权、量刑失衡等现象，量刑规范化制度的推行也成为了中央司法改革的重要项目。量刑规范化制度本身也有其局限性，对于量刑规范化制度的未来发展还应当结合我国的司法现状和量刑规范化本身来着手。 关键字：量刑规范化 自由裁量权 量刑失衡 同案不同刑 司法改革 On the Legal Principle Foundation of Sentencing?Standardization ABSTRACT Our country has been existed the phenomenon of sentencing imbalance, many people pay more and more attention to the issue of sentencing imbalance. And with the rapid development of the media and network platform, many miscarriage were revealed after the social , and all walks of life are focused on the judges judicial?activities and sentencing activities. Also, the judge who made the false were to blame .In the past, the judge sentencing activity is unknown to the public. As the consequence, some judges not law-abiding, because the essence of the proof and discretion of the judge is his subjective thinking process. When Sentencing imbalance phenomenon occurs, the judges need to prove the process of proof and  HYPERLINK /w/discretion/ \l keyfrom=E2Ctranslation discretion legally. It is necessary to have laws to prosecute. The third five-year plan in China, focus on carrying out Sentencing standardization system. It is should be noted that Sentencing standardization system is fundamentally?flawed, so we need to constantly improve it. KEY WORDS: standardization of sentencing； improper sentence；discretion； judicial reformation 引言 十年前发生的“张金柱案”，至今仍旧被许多人当做范例来说明舆论与司法独立之间的关系，在这起案件中很多人认为是媒体扩大报道、恶意引导舆论影响了司法机关的独立审判。将“张金柱案”与许霆案相对比则会发现两者的共同点，两起案件都是受到了舆论和媒体的影响之后，案件的判决于是发生了令人错愕的改变，尤其是在许霆案当中，一审和二审的宣告刑差别巨大。在这两起案件引起社会各界热议之后，人民提出了疑问