Research On The Consistency Of Sentencing

The inconsistency of sentencing always is a puzzling problem in both academicrealm and judicial practice of criminal law. Based on the judicial principles such as"Same matter, same treatment" and "Similar problems result similar ending", peoplesstrictly criticize the excessive differences appeared in sentencing practice. Thisproblem is the essential issue of the criminal judicature, and it is highly important torealize and keep the consistency of sentencing correctly. Through the context of thesesix chapters, this dissertation provides analysis on the problem of consistency insentencing, as well as author's own opinion and suggestion in this regard.Chapter I ForewordThis Chapter emphasizes the importance of sentencing in academic criminology andcriminal judicature.Chapter II Summary of Sentencing PrinciplesIn this Chapter, in addition to the analysis on typical definitions of sentencing, it isdiscussed that the core element of modern theory of sentencing is the discretion of thejudge, which is the reflection of the judge's own ability. Based on the aforesaid point,author further discusses about the principles of sentencing. Corresponding topresentation and analysis on the classical principles of sentencing, three principles ofsentencing are put forward, which includes a) "conviction according to laws."; b)"limitation on difference in punishment"; and c) "principle of overall consistency".The function of sentencing is consequently explained in this Chapter.Chapter III Legal Basis of Sentencing ConsistencySentencing consistency resulted from recognition of judge's discretional power inmodern legal practice, and is an inevitable result of the requirement for consistencybetween crime and punishment. It has its own jurisprudential basis, and is thereflection of people's faith on fairness and justice in the criminal law system. Thebasis of the sentencing consistency is that the severity of punishments must becommensurate with the crime committed by the offender, and the crime must bepunished pursuant to the laws. At the same time, we should properly consider thepurpose of punishment, so as to reach the consistency of sentencing when adapting tothe social reality and legal provisions. In this chapter, with both quantitative analysisand qualitative analysis on the present condition of the sentencing consistency in thejudicial practice, it is pointed out that in the current criminal judicature, the"sentencing consistency" has its legal basis, and the majority of sentencing couldkeep consistency.Chapter IV Inconsistency of SentencingWith an eye on current practice, author explains the definition of sentencinginconsistency, and with comparison to Chapter III, author explores on the connotationof the sentencing consistency. Four aspects are commented, including regionaldifference, domicile difference, jurisdiction difference, and criminals difference.Author also made a quantitative analysis about the difference of sentencinginconsistency, and profoundly discussed the fundamental reasons of sentencinginconsistency from seven aspects which include the elements of legislation, the judge,the court, the region, the political influence, the society, the defendants, and thesimpleness in sentencing method,.Chapter V Research on Foreign Countries for Inconsistency of Sentencing- - 4Introduction is provided on Common Law countries, such as US and Britain, as wellas Continental Law countries, such as German in respect of their research andtreatment for consistency problem. From the introduction, it could be concluded that,even in most developed countries with perfect legal system, the problem ofinconsistency in sentencing is still outstanding; therefore, the pursuit for relativereasonability and consistency in sentencing has a long way to go.Chapter VI Methods of Pursuing the Consistency of SentencingThe conclusion is that the consistency of sentencing is a rela...