Standardization Of Discretionary Sentencing

The development of sentencing standardization reform makes the long-neglected issue ofsentencing re-examined and also triggers a further consideration of standardization ofsentencing. To a large extent, the substantial standardization of sentencing mainly depends onits extraction and application of the discretionary circumstances of sentencing. However，non-standardization of discretionary circumstances of sentencing is rather prominent both incriminal legislation and cirminal justice in our country. This paper tires to research this topicfrom several aspects as follows.The ifrst aspect is the overview of standardization of discretionary circumstances ofsentencing, which begins with its biref introduction, including the definition and distinctionsbetween relevant concepts and itself, followed by a summairzed narrative of standardizationof sentencing, focusing on a general exposition of the status quo of standardization ofdiscretionary circumstances of sentencing in and abroad. Lastly, the discussion of how tostandardize it, which is that it should take standardization of sentencing as applicationprinciples and be regarded as the basic content of discretionary circumstances of sentencingso as to propose the point that it is the main concern of discretionary circumstances ofsentencing, mainly depending on its extraction and application to a large extent.The second aspect investigates current non-standardization of discretionarycircumstances of sentencing. First，the investigation of its legislation, mainly analyzing itfrom the provisions of general pirnciples and speciifc regulations in Cirminal Law, Second,investigation of its justice, stressing the analysis of this issue existed in expeirmentalachievements of sentencing standardization reform in central and local places. Third, placeswhere the problem exists, including the traditional perception of “valuing conviction butdespising measurement of penalty", the un-standardized procedure of sentencing, extensivecirminal legislation and over-extension of the discretionary circumstances of judges.The third aspect is the theoretical justification of standardization of discretionarycircumstances of sentencing, which contains two parts, namely its necessity and feasibility.Speciifcally speaking, the necessity part contains four sub-contents, that is，the generalpirnciples in Cirminal Law, basic criminal policies, the spiritual demands of cirminal peirodand the status quo of reforming non-standardization of discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Regarding its feasibility, the paper considers it from both legislation andjustiifcation.The fourth aspect is the basic path of the standardization of discretionary circumstancesof sentencing. Above all, its perception should be converted. Then，its procedure should besupeiror. Besides, its legislation should be perfected by confirming its status in law andpaying attention to the extraction of discretionary circumstances of sentencing. Finally，itsjustification should also be modiifed，ranging from the perfection of “the people’s courtsentencing guidelines" to the establishment of guidance system of criminal cases as well asregulations of criminal adjudication and sentence.