Study On The Standardization Of Sentencing

Traditional and rough measures of penalty give rise to the denouncement andrethinking from the society. The lack of due procedure and concrete rules has mademeasures of penalty more difficult to tolerate. In some serious crimes, the negativeeffect of injustice in penalty is no less severe than that of the misjudged cases. Justlike the unbalanced relationship between entity and procedure, the more emphasis puton conviction rather than the measurement of penalty, has caused wide criticism.When we are in pursuit of excellence and systematic subdivision in variousprofessions today, to ignore the problem of unfair measures of penalty seems unwise.Whether it is based on a pursuit of justice or based on response to social criticism,standardization of measurement of penalty arises.Many aspects should be taken into consideration for the purpose ofstandardization of measurement of penalty. Defects and deformity of the current rulesrequire the measurement of penalty to be standardized. And this needs systematicconsideration. There is much difference between conviction and measurement ofpenalty, but common points can be found. Both conviction and measurement ofpenalty should be based on due procedures, which shall be certain and reasonable.Though conviction and measurement of penalty are based on evidences, the object ofproof, the burden of proof and proof standard are different for this two types ofprocedures,, and thus the rules of evidence for measurement of penalty shall be givenspecial attention. Although the legal systems of different countries are closely linkedwith history, tradition and culture, justice and rules share the common core, so thatthe analysis of and reference to the western system will help perfect our country’ssentencing standardization construction. Based on the study of the sentencing rules ofUS, UK and other western countries, this thesis examines the Anglo-Americanexperiences in measurement of penalty.The thesis is made up of three chapters, respectively discussing the basic theoryabout the standardization of measurement of penalty, achievements made by and characteristics of the western countries in sentencing standardization, as well as thespecific plan of sentencing standardization in our country. The preface mainlydiscusses present sentencing system and its insufficiency, thus to provide apreparatory foundation for the reform and construction of sentencing system. Chapterone discusses basic theories about standardization of measurement of penalty, and thefocus is on sentencing standardization experiences after China conducted the reformand opening policy, and on present situation and defects, and on the causes of themalady of sentencing process. And thus, the core, the goal and the key points ofstandardization of measurement of penalty, can be preliminarily put forward. Ourcountry’s sentencing standardization shall be based on restricting the judge’sdiscretion as the core, balancing the sentencing results as the goal, and due processconstruction as the key point. Chapter two studies the experience and characteristicsof western sentencing standardization. The general rules of western sentencingstandardization is analyzed; through the analysis, it is found that sentencingsuggestion is not only the important right of public prosecution authority, but also animportant measure to restrict the judge’s discretion and to form the triangularstructure between the accuser, the defender and the judge during the sentencingprocedures. Thus, it is necessary to introduce sentencing construction system. Inaddition, the western sentencing guidance system and the judicial precedent systemcan also be taken as a positive reference for our sentencing standardizationconstruction. Chapter three focuses on the analysis of the current legal context, andon how to promote the standardization in sentencing reform. The first is to establishindependent sentencing procedures; only in independent sentencing procedures, thesentencing standardization can be realized. And the second is to reform rules ofevidence applicable to sentencing; how to prove that sentencing result is in line withjustice is the question that the rules of evidence shall answer. In order to solve theproblem of ignoring the victim in sentencing program, and also in order to liftsentencing precision, the victim statement system should be introduced to thesentencing procedure. Considering that our country has carried out sentencingguidelines and case guidance practices, the authors believe that the combination of the two shall help achieve better effect. As for the Judge’s discretion, it ought to beensured but be constrained at the same time.