Analysis On The Standardization Of Penalty Measurement

Standardization of penalty measurement refers to the procession t in which penalty measurement conforms to given rules and norms to create the rationality, openness and predictability of penalty measurement, thus to realize the justice and rationality of penalty measurement. Standardization of penalty measurement is a systematic process. Its subject is judicial officer and its object is trial activity. Standardization of penalty measurement includes substantive standardization and procedural standardization. In the procession of penalty measurement, in order to realize the justice and rationality of penalty measurement, substantive and procedural regulations must be unified and coordinated. The core of standardization of penalty measurement is the standardization of exercise of powers.The dissertation begins with the concept of standardization of penalty measurement, then analyzes its essence,it compares the theory and practices concerning standardization of penalty measurement both in China and foreign countries. And then demonstrates the standardization of penalty measurement in China and interprets its reasons. And then In the end, it lists the suggestions on the improvement of penalty measurement. The dissertation includes 5 chapters excluding the Introduction and conclusion.Chapter I interprets the concept and essence of standardization of penalty measurement. Standardization of penalty measurement refers to the procession t in which penalty measurement conforms to given rules and norms to create the rationality, openness and predictability of penalty measurement, thus to realize the justice and rationality of penalty measurement. Standardization of penalty measurement includes substantive standardization and procedural standardization. Substantive standardization of penalty measurement refers to the definiteness of penalty measurement principles, the scientificity of penalty measurement methods and comparative accuracy of penalty measurement results. Procedural standardization of penalty measurement refers to the penalty measurement procedure which can embody supportability, comparative independence, justice, control of powers and publicity. The core of standardization of penalty measurement is the standardization of exercise of powers, i.e. the rational l restrictions of powers.Chapter II interprets the values and theoretical basis of standardization of penalty measurement. It can ensure to realize judicial fairness and social equity. It is a necessary measure to enhance the predictability of penalty. In theory the purpose of penalty mainly concludes retribution theory, prevention theory, and compromise theory, which covers the 2 theories above. The retribution theory, in the basis of retribution, argues that punishment only imposed on crime, the purposes of punishment are retribution and punishment against the criminal damages, and recovery of public order and people's reliability on the norm damaged by crime. According to the retribution theory, the punishment should be consistent with the harmful levels of crime. Judges decides the variety and severity of the punishment according to the harmful levels of crime. Prevention theory, also named relativity theory insists that punishment is imposed in order to eliminate the crime in the future. It has been involved in the speech and works of Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Lombroso. Compromise theory argues that the purposes of punishment contain both the factor of retribution punishment contents of prevention and redevelopment. The compromise theory merges the 2 theories, thus improves the defects of the 2 theories, therefore, it proves to be the main stream of the theory on the basis for the penalty.Chapter III compares the theories and practices concerning the standardization of penalty measurement in China and foreign countries. It analyzes the legislative practices in America and Germany, and then interprets the domestic conditions of he standardization of penalty measurement.Chapter IV lists and analyzes the presentations and causes of non- standardization of penalty measurement. It manifests as different punishment with the same crime, the same punishment with different crime, disproportionate punishment to the crime, punishment too serve or too soft. The legislative causes includes the too wide range of penalty measurement, which causes the inequality in application, the irrationality of settlement of some legally-prescribed punishment, disharmony of penalty distribution, non-specification of prescribed circumstances of sentencing, too wide range of judicial discretionary powers, lack in the operability of sentencing principles. The judicial causes concludes the inequity of trial conception, lack in the summarization and normalization and judicial experience, unqualified judges'abuse of discretion, unscientification of sentencing methods, and non- standardization of sentencing procedures.Chapter V makes some advices on the standardization of penalty measurement. Firstly, it defines the principles of standardization of penalty measurement: legitimacy, equilibrium between crime and punishment, and limited individual punishment. In legislation, sentence range should be shortened, adjust ranges of circumstance for sentencing should be elaborated. In jurisdiction, sentencing methods should be specified and sentencing procedures should be improved.