The Research On The Standards Of Death Sentence With A Two-year Reprieve In Crime Of Intentional Homicide

Death sentence with a two-year reprieve is created by our nation, which is attracting folks both in theoretical cycle and practice area. Rooted in the system of death penalty, death sentence with a two-year reprieve is not regarded as a solo kind of punishment; however, the execution is similar to life imprisonment. There is little disputes on death sentence in such cases with fully proved facts and precise convictions, but the dispute occurs on whether a two-year reprieve is necessary. Among all the death sentence cases, intentional homicide is the most in quantity and the blurriest in the standard of death sentence with a two-year reprieve. The principle and standard for death sentence with a two-year reprieve gets much attention as the policy of less and cautious death penalty application, alone with the strengthening attention and the deepening cognition by the public. The controversy in theoretical cycle on the standard of death sentence with a two-year reprieve has never been silent, so much focus on the intentional homicide in recent years, such as Ma Jiajue, Yao Jiaxin and Lin Senhao, have challenged the standard that “to be or not to be” is a question attracted everyone’s attention Substantially, such controversy and disputes lie in the deficiency and disunity on the standard. Moreover, as kind of supplementary punishment to death sentence with a two-year reprieve, the standard of the restriction on commutation is required as a part of standard of death sentence with a two-year reprieve.The standard of death sentence with a two-year reprieve requires premise of hazard to society and personal dangerousness from consequence, means, motivation and the possibility of re-crime. On the basis of normalized standard, limited hazard to society is the premise to the standard, as we call “not extremely serious crimes”. Death penalty completely eradicates the possibility of re-crime, while death sentence with a two-year reprieve brings the possibility of freedom that may result re-crime, so the assessment of personal dangerousness is indispensable. Thus the limited hazard to society and personal dangerousness shall be the premise and standard for the application of death sentence with a two-year reprieve. The limited hazard to society and personal dangerousness shall be represented as follow: Firstly, the crime, as the most directly reflection of hazard to society and the indirect performance, does not break the general ethical bottom line. Secondly, remissive motivation, remissive motivation includes the obvious fault of the victim if the fault plays an essential role in resulting the whole crime, the complicated contradiction, and the relationship between the criminal and the victim shall also be taken in to consideration. Thirdly, the criminal show his repentance, repentance performance is represent in two sides: acknowledge the guilty and confession. Acknowledge the guilty is represented in the authenticity, comprehensiveness and objectivity of voluntary surrender and telling the truth, and confession means apologize for the forgiveness and active compensation. Lastly, consistent performance could be also taken into consideration. Seeking the standard of death sentence with a two-year reprieve, the statutory circumstance and the discretionary circumstances shall also be taken into consideration in different hierarchies. Taking the circumstances that reflecting the hazard to society and personal dangerousness including voluntary surrender,meritorious performance and recidivism into consideration during measurement of penalty shows great sense in build the standard of death sentence with a two-year reprieve. Moreover, as limited commutation standard as a part of standard for the death sentence with a two-year reprieve, the forgiveness from the victim’s relatives is the basis whether the limited commutation is applied, however the specific facts is still necessary.The standard of death sentence with a two-year reprieve applied in the general cases: Firstly, in joint offence, the cranial does not the most serious crime but has the direct responsibility for the death of the victim, moreover, the criminal who does the most fatal action has pay his life. Objectively, principle as the most odious person in joint offence shall be deemed to suffer the most severe punishment; subjectively, perpetrators of violence are more condemnable than others, so he shall suffer the most severe punishment. From the cause of the crime, the objective dangerousness varies from and is reflected by aim and motivation. Secondly, the means is not so cruel; the cruelness shows in three points, that is to say, the tool, the way and the object of crime. Thirdly, light psychopath commits a crime out of control. Light psychopath reflects different from general people to the same stimulation, thus it is much harder for this kind of folks to control the feeling of his own, so the best way to handle the crime is to cure instead of the most serious penalty. Last but not least, when the clues and evidences now cannot beyond all reasonable doubt, leave the case more leeway is necessary It means some details which has no impact on the determination of the case on condition that the facts and accusation has been confirmed doubtless, and it is not the evidence in doubt.