本文選題：刑罰失衡 + 生產(chǎn)��； 參考：《東北師范大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑罰失衡概念是基于罪刑均衡、刑罰個(gè)別化理論而提出的，其不同于因兩者而產(chǎn)生的刑罰合理差異，是罪刑不均在宣告刑上的集中體現(xiàn)，反映了立法與司法刑罰規(guī)范化的問(wèn)題。刑罰失衡關(guān)涉法治建設(shè)、社會(huì)安定、人權(quán)保障等重大問(wèn)題，必當(dāng)著力防范�！缎谭ㄐ拚福ò耍吩诒Ｗo(hù)民生的意義上確實(shí)發(fā)揮了重大作用，但也加深了生產(chǎn)、銷售假藥罪（下文簡(jiǎn)稱“假藥犯罪”）刑罰失衡的程度。該危害在客觀上表現(xiàn)為立法規(guī)范的罪刑失衡和司法適用的量刑失衡，由此可能導(dǎo)致假藥犯罪刑罰裁量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的模糊和量刑的不公正；在主觀上表現(xiàn)為思想觀念的局限和思維方式的僵化，從而可能產(chǎn)生重刑思想并陷入主觀歸罪的誤區(qū)。 刑罰失衡的顯性原因是立法技術(shù)缺陷和司法裁量失范，體現(xiàn)為無(wú)限額罰金刑的不明確性和資格刑功能的缺失、問(wèn)責(zé)制度的缺位、裁量權(quán)行使的錯(cuò)誤；隱性原因則是職業(yè)素養(yǎng)欠缺和法律權(quán)屬?zèng)_突，體現(xiàn)為立法者和司法者對(duì)刑法精神認(rèn)知能力的欠缺，以及立法權(quán)和司法權(quán)不均衡等問(wèn)題。無(wú)論是以美國(guó)為代表的計(jì)量式量刑模式、以英國(guó)為代表的論理式量刑模式都意在擺脫刑罰失衡的困擾；無(wú)論是以量刑委員會(huì)、律師協(xié)會(huì)還是人民法院為主體制定的量刑規(guī)范都意在建立量刑防范的制度�；谖覈�(guó)司法現(xiàn)狀，量刑防范應(yīng)著重實(shí)體和程序兩個(gè)層面。在實(shí)體層面，，強(qiáng)調(diào)合理確定量刑基準(zhǔn)、規(guī)范酌定量刑情節(jié)，從而達(dá)到科學(xué)統(tǒng)一量刑方法、防止量刑偏差的目的；在程序?qū)用�，�?qiáng)調(diào)弱化審判主體職權(quán)、強(qiáng)化控訴主體職權(quán)、賦予其他參與主體相應(yīng)權(quán)利，從而起到保障當(dāng)事人合法權(quán)益、規(guī)范裁量權(quán)的效果。
[Abstract]:The concept of penalty imbalance is based on the theory of equilibrium of crime and punishment and individualization of penalty, which is different from the reasonable difference of penalty caused by them, and it is the concentrated embodiment of unevenness of crime and punishment in proclamation penalty, which reflects the standardization of legislation and judicial punishment. The imbalance of punishment is related to the construction of the rule of law, social stability, human rights protection and other major issues. We must focus on prevention. The < Criminal Law Amendment (8) > has indeed played a major role in protecting the people's livelihood, but it has also deepened production. The extent to which the penalties for the sale of counterfeit drugs (hereinafter referred to as "counterfeit drug offences") are out of balance. The harm objectively manifests itself in the imbalance of crime and punishment as well as the penalty imbalance of judicial application, which may lead to the ambiguity of criminal penalty discretion standard and the unfairness of sentencing. Subjectively, the limitation of ideology and the ossification of thinking mode may lead to heavy punishment and fall into the misunderstanding of subjective imputation. The obvious causes of penalty imbalance are legislative technical defects and judicial discretion, which are reflected in the uncertainty of unlimited fine penalty, the lack of function of qualification penalty, the absence of accountability system, and the error of exercising discretion; The hidden reason is the lack of professional literacy and the conflict of legal ownership, which is reflected in the lack of cognitive ability of legislators and judiciaries to the spirit of criminal law, as well as the imbalance between legislative power and judicial power. Both the metrological sentencing model represented by the United States and the argumentative sentencing model represented by the United Kingdom are intended to get rid of the problem of penalty imbalance; whether it is the sentencing Commission, The bar association or the people's court establishes the sentencing standard for the main body, which is intended to establish the system of sentencing prevention. Based on the current judicial situation in China, sentencing prevention should focus on two levels: substantive and procedural. At the substantive level, it emphasizes the reasonable determination of sentencing benchmark, standardizes the discretion of sentencing circumstances, so as to achieve the purpose of scientific unified sentencing method, to prevent sentencing deviation; in the procedural level, it emphasizes the weakening of the authority of the main body of the trial and the strengthening of the authority of the subject of complaint. Other participants are given the right to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties and regulate the discretion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D924

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 高銘暄;;寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)刑事政策與酌定量刑情節(jié)的適用[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年01期

2 賈冰一;;探尋刑罰個(gè)別化的正當(dāng)根據(jù)[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

3 孫勁;美國(guó)“法庭之友”制度中的外國(guó)和美國(guó)政府[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2004年03期

4 周光權(quán);量刑基準(zhǔn)研究[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);1999年05期

本文編號(hào)：1774237