The Judicial Path Of Sentencing Standardization

Full-text is divided into four parts:Part I: Overview of standardization of sentencing. Discuss general issues of sentencing and the content and significance of sentencing standardization. It is an important judicial reform projects of the people's courts "35 reform outline", and a "co-with the sentence" target pursuit. Sentencing standardization includes three aspects: the standardization of physical sentencing, sentencing procedures, and sentencing outcome. For example, "standardized guidance on sentencing," "the rules governing sentencing," and so on. Sentencing process standardization, which means first and foremost the sentencing process should be open, allowing it to understand the facts of the case, testimony, defense, and the exercise of other rights of action. The standardized sentencing results is that in the verdict, we must specify the various reasons, including: the existence of a sentencing facts, what are the sentencing facts and the nature of the the fact; whether to adopt the views of both defense and prosecution and the reasons; reasons of judicial sentencing.Part II: Analysis of sentences unstandardized. This section discusses the sentencing deviation's performance and hazards. Manifested in different parts of the same area between different courts and different judges and different periods of sentencing error. Sentencing bias's consequences are: the high rate of appeals and criminal cases, and judicial resources-consuming,which increase the party's litigation costs,and make the "human", "money", "power" intervene in the proceedings. In addition, the cause of sentencing bias are analyzed, from a legislative point of view, criminal legislation is incomplete, the law rough, Legal Sentence of magnitude too large, it is an inherent imbalance in sentencing. From the point of judicial practice, for three reasons: First, there is the bad practice "re-conviction light sentence"; Second is subject to policies and social situation and the impact of public opinion; Third is subject to the impact of the judge's personal qualities. From the sentence method, "estimate pile" type is the most direct cause of producing sentencing error in China.Part III: A beneficial exploration on the foreign and China sentencing standard. First, about various sentencing methods, Chinese scholars have put forth such as the level of analysis; mathematical model; quantitative analysis; computer sentencing. To some extent, computer and mathematical methods seem to have realized the sentencing precision, so that sentencing freed from the experience of operations to help overcome the various human factors, and contribute to a fair sentencing surrounding and an objective and uniform sentencing standards. However, in reality, as to complex circumstances of the case and the computer plots are pre-sentencing, and its settings are also limited to the legal circumstances, but we can not consider all the plot of sentencing formally. Therefore, the computer sentencing results can not be considered as a basis for sentencing, it just a tool for handling the case,and judges are still the subject. Reference point is mentioned more, I also agree it.Secondly, the advent of sentencing guidelines and inspiration. The US formulated the "sentencing guidelines". China has developed, such as "Normative sentencing guidance"; "sentencing rules to guide" "Sentencing Guiding General (Trial)"; Supreme formulated the "Sentencing Guiding Opinions" and "sentencing procedures for guidance". Through a comparative study we found its advantages and disadvantages. In practice, it can improve efficiency, uniform standards. But if too detailed, it will be absolute and lost the resilience. Therefore, the formulation of sentencing guidelines should not be absolutely accurate, otherwise easily lead to the judge towards the other extreme. In addition, the sentencing guidelines should be a unified national standard, both to ensure fair, and will not cause a new round of sentencing error, because the province's condition.Partâ…£: The justice path of sentencing standardized. Legislative reasons are impossible to solve in the existing technical conditions and in a short time, which would require summing up judicial experience and sentencing theory over a period of time, and at an appropriate time to be resolved by the legislature. In the existing legislative conditions, the sentence should focus on justice. Too much power to judges in sentencing, coupled with the traditional empirical methods and the uneven quality of judges produced the deviation of the sentencing.Therefore, in this part the author suggest restricting the discretion of judges, finding a scientific method and enhancing the sentencing judge the quality. The three parties cooperate with each other to solve the sentencing deviation. To limit the discretion, I propose formulating sentencing guidance case-guide system and relatively independent of the sentencing procedure system. These three not only limits the discretion of judges, but also provide a scientific method for the trial. On the contrary, a scientific method is useful to limit the discretion of the judge.