Research On The Sentencing Reasoning

In recent years, our legislature began to pay attention to the referee reasoning. But in thejudicial practice, the fact is that the judge is more focused on conviction reasoning, sentencingreasoning has been marginalized for a long time, failed to get enough attention. Sentencingreasoning is not detailed, and sentencing imbalance is obvious, which all invite both theorycircle and ordinary people to think Chinese sentencing activities exist serious black-box andsentencing unfair phenomenon. The result has been detrimental seriously to our country’sjudicial authority, and also reduces the sentencing judge acceptability. The text intends tomake the definition of sentencing reasoning, and on this basis, to tease out the existingproblems and reasons in our country, inspect the sentencing reasoning outside of our countryand recommend appropriate solutions.The text is about30000words, text is divided into five parts,The first part is a summary of sentencing reasoning. Sentencing reasoning refers to inthe process of sentencing, in sentencing the cognizance of facts, the application of thesentencing specification, the facts and the justification of specification’s relationship,sentencing conclusion proof process and things like that, the judge deliver the above mattersto ordinary and a potential audience of action behavior by criminal judicial documents. Thispart also elaborates on the theoretical foundation, system of deconstruction and significanceof sentencing reasoning.The second part mainly investigates the sentencing reasoning conditions in othercountry. This article chose the advocating and encouraging the sentencing reasoning of Japan,as well as the mandatory reasoning of the UK and China’s Taiwan region. The legislationcould refer to the legislation and practice of the Japan and Taiwan area according to the actualsituation in our country, and specify the sentencing issues clearly, to avoid the abstractness oflaw under way and provide specific reference object for the sentencing judge.The third part mainly shows the problems of universality and particularity in theprocess of sentencing reasoning in China. The universal problems is embedded in evidencepiled up, lack of analysis of the relationship between the facts to prove and evidence, limitedto the fact that reason and the reason of the law, less integrated into the legal things andreasonable. Thinking highly of conviction reasoning, principal punishments reasoning, legally prescribed circumstances of sentencing reasoning, not care of sentencing reasoning,supplementary punishments reasoning, discretionary circumstances of sentencing, lack ofsentencing reasoning to sentencing defense, sentencing reasoning mechanization, are all thereflections of specific questions of sentencing reasoning.The fourth part demonstrates the causes of the current sentencing reasoning problems.The penalty specifications deficient, sentencing specification abstract, sentencing plot unclear,lack of independent sentencing procedures, sentencing restricted access to informationchannels, judicative paper’s structure chaos, legal reasoning mechanization and so forth arethe account of inadequate sentencing reasoning.The fifth part makes relevant responses aiming at the current sentencing reasoningproblems. Firstly, we should refine the substantive sentencing specification, and specify thesentencing issues clearly to provide legal basis for the judge’s sentencing reasoning. Secondly,building independent sentencing procedure, reforming the current structure of criminaljudicial documents, strengthening the legal reasoning, providing a institutional environmentfor the judge sentencing reasoning, changing the court judicial operation pattern of towngovernment are also the important substantive and procedural measures of realization ofsentencing reasoning. Last but not least, to realize the importance of sentencing reasoning, toencourage the referee producer to reason actively is essential. Through the above measures,sentencing reasoning problems can be well resolved, and the authority of thesentencing judgment can also be improved.