Font Size: a A A

Empirical Research On Reasoning Of Criminal Sentencing Verdict

Posted on:2017-11-21Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:X H XiaFull Text:PDF
GTID:2346330488972533Subject:Code of Criminal Procedure
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
In the last few years, a number of controversial judgements have been made in criminal cases, which disclosed the absence of the reasoning of sentence, on which account the citizens hold a skeptical attitude toward courts. Moreover, the innovation of the reasoning of judgement in China, in recent years, are majorly bound up in the conviction, by comparison, only remote attention have been paid on the reasoning of sentence. Both of the ossification of sentence and the lack of sentencing reasoning had aroused the appeals of defendants who were very dissatisfied with the impartiality of the judgement of the first instance. Increasing discontent and mistrust also had emerged in society, which substantially undermined the authority and the public recognition of the judicial decisions. The objective of this dissertation is to aims to demonstrate and emphasis the functions of sentencing reasoning, and makes efforts to expound and analyze the exsiting problems and factors giving rise to the problems, on basis of which some relevant advice and strategies will be come up with.There are four parts of the text that remove the preface and epilogue.The first part focus on the analysis of the functions of sentencing reasoning. A brief description of the concept of the sentencing reasoning will be exhibited at first, following the analysis of the function of sentencing reasoning including the limitation of the discretionary, which ensures the justice of judiciary, the satisfaction of the public right to know the truth, the improvement of the acceptability of the conclusion the sentence, the enhancement of the public recognition of judiciary and the preservation of the authority of judiciary, the improvement of the skills of judges and the achievements of the unification of the sentence and the judgement.The second part mainly dissects the existing problems of sentencing reasoning. In the light of some general surveys and sample surveys, the dissertation identifies the problems. First, the high value has been put on the conviction instead of sentence, which cannot reflect the independence of sentence; secondly, the failure of distinguishing the complex cases from simple ones makes the reasoning pattern unreasonable; thirdly, the main attention has been paid on the reasoning of principle penalty and imprisonment instead of the reasoning of supplementary penalty and probation; fourthly, the courts place more weigh on the suggestions of the prosecuting parties than on the defense opinions; sixthly, generally, the courts only enumerate facts without offering reasonings of evidence; seventhly, the generalization of contents of judgement causes the lack of specificity.The third part considers the factors attribute to the problems. Firstly, there is only one procedure serving for both conviction and sentence, which limit the adequacy of reasoning; secondly, affected by the administrative of jurisdiction, the judges are insincere in their words; thirdly, an absence of a restriction mechanism gives judges more freedom to seek convenience; and fourthly, regarding to the professionalism, some judges are not able to give a reason.The fourth part includes some relevant advise and strategies. On the basis of research on the current situations, there are some proposals, as follows: firstly, an independent procedure shall be established in order to ensure the sentence reasoning obtain as much concerns as conviction reasoning; secondly, complex cases shall be distinguished from simple cases, optimizing the allocation of judicial resources, which means that some simple cases can be disposed quickly without offering a reason, by contrast, ordinary cases need simple reasoning, complex cases need detailed reasoning; thirdly, the content of reasoning should be more comprehensive by adding the reasoning of supplementary penalty and probation, and the varieties of the reasoning methods; fourthly, according to the general levels of judges in China, training and examination systems shall be designed to improve the standard of reasoning and stimulate the initiative of reasoning; fifthly, to make sure judges and collegiate benches to be able to exercise their jurisdiction reasonably and justly, a reformation of the present operating mechanism shall be implemented assuring judges to express freely.
Keywords/Search Tags:Criminal Judgement, Sentence, Reasoning, Sentencing Conclusion, Sentencing Reason
PDF Full Text Request
Related items