發(fā)布時間：2018-02-12 08:28

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 獨立量刑程序 量刑證明 證明對象 證明責(zé)任 證明規(guī)則　出處：《蘭州大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：自從2010年全國法院開始全面試行由三高兩部聯(lián)合簽發(fā)的《關(guān)于規(guī)范量刑程序若干問題的意見(試行)》,我國就確立了在刑事訴訟程序中適用相對獨立量刑程序的制度。而鑒于相對獨立量刑程序的本質(zhì)和其自身帶有的特點,要全面貫徹實行相對獨立量刑程序就產(chǎn)生了一個無法回避的問題——量刑證明問題。量刑證明可以說是整個獨立量刑程序的精髓,無論是我國的相對獨立量刑程序還是英美法系中狹義的獨立量刑程序,其都離不開量刑證明。如果沒有量刑證明的支撐,獨立量刑很可能成為一個“為了程序而程序”的空架子,既無法從實質(zhì)上起到規(guī)范量刑活動的目的,也無法從根本上對量刑時法官的自由裁量權(quán)進行限制。 盡管我國已經(jīng)在量刑獨立化方面邁出了歷史性的一步,但目前處于全面試行階段的相對獨立的量刑程序仍然在量刑證明方面存在很多需要填充的內(nèi)容。鑒于此,對于國外量刑證明制度方面的借鑒就很有必要了,這也是我國法律學(xué)人傳統(tǒng)的研究手段之一。對于我國相對獨立量刑程序的完善最具借鑒意義的還是英美法系獨立量刑程序下的量刑證明制度,同時大陸法系國家近些年也推出了一些有關(guān)量刑制度改革的舉措,其對我國量刑制度的完善也具有重要的指導(dǎo)意義。在不改變我國當(dāng)前基本司法制度的前提下,在堅持采用大陸法系職權(quán)主義審判模式的基礎(chǔ)之上,大力引進和吸收英美法系當(dāng)事人主義審判模式中對于量刑證明的合理規(guī)定已經(jīng)成為了目前刑事訴訴法學(xué)界眾多學(xué)者的共識。 全文共分為五章,筆者擬從廣義的獨立量刑程序和整個刑事訴訟中證明的概念和特征談起,從多個角度分析獨立量刑量程序中證明的重要性和特殊性,然后再通過比較兩大法系在量刑證明具體問題上的異同,找出我國現(xiàn)行相對獨立量刑程序中在量刑證明的證明對象、證明責(zé)任以及證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)三個方面存在的不足和缺陷,以期能夠提出一些具有現(xiàn)實意義的改善意見。
[Abstract]:Since 2010, when the national courts began to try out the opinions on some issues concerning the standardization of sentencing procedures (for trial implementation) issued jointly by the three high and two ministries, China has established the system of applying relatively independent sentencing procedures in criminal proceedings. And given the nature of the relatively independent sentencing process and its own characteristics, In order to fully implement the relatively independent sentencing procedure, an unavoidable problem arises-the issue of sentencing proof. Sentencing proof can be said to be the essence of the whole independent sentencing procedure. No matter the relatively independent sentencing procedure in our country or the narrow independent sentencing procedure in Anglo-American law system, it can not be separated from sentencing proof. Independent sentencing is likely to be an empty frame of "procedure for the sake of procedure", which can not actually serve the purpose of standardizing sentencing activities, nor can it fundamentally restrict the discretion of judges in sentencing. Although our country has taken a historic step in the independence of sentencing, the relatively independent sentencing procedure, which is currently in the comprehensive trial stage, still has a lot to fill in the aspect of sentencing proof. In view of this, It is necessary for foreign countries to draw lessons from the sentencing certification system. This is also one of the traditional research methods of Chinese legal scholars. The most significant reference for the perfection of relatively independent sentencing procedure in China is the sentencing certification system under the independent sentencing procedure in Anglo-American law system. At the same time, some measures about the reform of sentencing system have been put forward in the countries of civil law system in recent years, which have important guiding significance for the perfection of sentencing system in our country. Without changing the current basic judicial system of our country, On the basis of adhering to the civil law system, it has become the consensus of many scholars in the field of criminal action to introduce and absorb the reasonable provisions of sentencing proof in the trial mode of litigant doctrine in Anglo-American law system. The full text is divided into five chapters. The author intends to discuss the concept and characteristics of the independent sentencing procedure and the whole criminal procedure, and analyze the importance and particularity of the proof in the independent sentencing procedure from many angles. Then by comparing the similarities and differences between the two legal systems on the specific issue of sentencing proof, we find out the shortcomings and defects in three aspects of the current relatively independent sentencing procedure in our country, namely, the object of proof, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. In order to be able to put forward some practical significance of improvement.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王瑞麗;;論英美法系犯罪構(gòu)成的本質(zhì)及根基[J];佛山科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2009年02期

2 葉青;;再論庭審中設(shè)置獨立量刑程序的可行性[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年03期

3 章曉民;黃書建;;獨立量刑程序的價值分析[J];河北法學(xué);2009年11期

4 陳瑞華;;量刑程序中的證據(jù)規(guī)則[J];吉林大學(xué)社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2011年01期

5 閔春雷;;論量刑證明[J];吉林大學(xué)社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2011年01期

6 樊崇義;;量刑程序與證據(jù)[J];南都學(xué)壇;2009年04期

7 康懷宇;;比較法視野中的定罪事實與量刑事實之證明——嚴(yán)格證明與自由證明的具體運用[J];四川大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年02期

8 于改之;郭獻朝;;兩大法系犯罪論體系的比較與借鑒[J];法學(xué)論壇;2006年01期

9 趙志梅;;試論量刑證明的特殊性——以獨立量刑程序為視角[J];山西高等學(xué)校社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2010年01期

10 龍宗智;;證明責(zé)任制度的改革完善[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2007年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 金玄默;論證據(jù)裁判主義[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號：1505203