Empirical Research On Appropriate Sentencing

Case Xuting caused uproar and refracted the lack of authoritative judgment. It also refracted that there was no common view about appropriate sentencing standards. There are different opinions about Case Xuting. Someone supported Xuting should be convicted while others supported he should not be convicted. Someone considered that it was too heavy to sentence of life imprisonment, while others deemed it was appropriate to sentence ten years in prison. In fact, the judgment of five years had been in effect. The origin reason lies in that the factors are very complicated which effect on appropriate sentencing. Judges are not "coin operated vending machines". Measurement of penalty should be creative activities. It would be affected by the capacity of judges, sentencing procedure and patterns.In criminal trial practice, the accuracy of conviction and the appropriation of sentencing were general criteria for the quality of individual case. This dissertation is focusing on appropriate sentencing and based on Case Xuting. It will cover how to achieve appropriate sentencing and how to overcome the factors which impacts sentencing. It hopes appropriate sentencing to mold trial authority and trial authority to ensure appropriate sentencing.General criteria on appropriate sentencing. In the author's opinion, the consensus about general criteria on appropriate sentencing should be established just like the conviction should be supported from four aspects. Therefore, the dissertation demonstrates the general criteria and the significance of the research from the start with an overview of appropriate sentencing. It is the key point, the difficult point and the innovation point. In this dissertation, the author demonstrates the general criteria about appropriate sentencing. Firstly, particular crime matches legal penalty. It is appropriate to determine the starting point. Secondly, constitution of a crime matches social harmfulness. It is appropriate to determine the basic criterion for sentencing. Thirdly, sentencing circumstances regulate the basic criterion for sentencing. It is appropriate to determine the to-be-declared punishment. Lastly, the result matches the rule of individualization of punishment. It is appropriate to determine the declared penalty. Four criteria go hand in hand, not a single one can be omitted. Although it is the own statement of the author, it is based on legislative authority including theory of criminal law and trial practice on Sentencing Standardization.It is significant to establish general criteria on appropriate sentencing. For a long time, there was no common view about appropriate sentencing standards. There was a wide variety in theory and the public was confused by the situation. The author regarded that it was significant to evaluate the quality of case by the criteria of appropriate sentencing, not only in criminal theory but also in trial practice. It helps to establish the case quality standard in criminal trial. It is good to overcome the arbitrariness of the judge to exercise of discretion and then realize justness. It may promote the identity on the case quality standard. The public would enhance the fear of the Law and then accept the judgment voluntarily. At last, it would do good to make the reform target of Sentencing Standardization more clearly.Relativity on appropriate sentencing. The dissertation establishes the position of appropriate sentencing relatively. From the perspective of philosophy, the truth has dual characters. Whether sentencing is appropriate or not is not absolute. Beccaria said that the equality of penalty was just exterior and in fact it differed from one to one. From this point, it follows the research direction on how to achieve appropriate sentencing and how to overcome the factors which impacts sentencing. On the view of trial practice, the factors which impacts sentencing were complex including criminal legislation and trial, sentencing procedure and patterns. Judges may be more important. They consider the penalty based on Facts and Law. But Facts include objective facts and legal facts, while Law is general and abstract. Consequently judges strive for Sentencing Standardization but the results seem pessimistic. The dissertation reviewed the main problem and analyzed the relative factors in four chapters. The common feature of the above five chapters was to reveal why it is relative about appropriate sentencing. It will follow three main routes including judicial interpretation, case instruction and sentencing regulation. The author regards it important both to reveal the relativity of appropriate sentencing and how to achieve it.Sentencing method. Chairman Mao Zedong elaborated the importance of methodology long ago. The sentencing method would be extremely important to achieve appropriate sentencing. The luminous points of Sentencing Standardization were independent sentencing procedure and canonical sentencing method. Naturally sentencing method became the topic of this dissertation. Obviously it covered qualitative and quantitative methods. It was real innovation to change the traditional sentencing method. Chapter Five devoted to this opinion.In summary, there were three main viewpoints in this dissertation, including the relativity of appropriate sentencing, the sentencing method and the general criteria. The research also consisted of sentencing subject, independent sentencing procedure and the practice of Sentencing Standardization. Through the analysis all-round, the dissertation would try to clarify a viewpoint: sentencing justice should aim at appropriate sentencing while it was relatively. Judges strive for appropriate sentencing and at the same time the public should treat it rationally, the society should strengthen judicial public faith and maintain judicial authority. The strong faith and authority of criminal trial would be great guarantee to achieve appropriate sentencing.