量刑治理的模式之争——兼评量刑的两个指导“意见”

A Dispute on the Model of Sentencing Governance

量刑失衡和量刑公信力低是我国量刑实践中两个根本性的问题。以构建绝对独立的量刑程序为基本内容的程序治理模式不仅效果有限,而且支撑乏力,困难重重;实体治理模式虽能立竿见影,且方便易行,但争议较大,容易损害法官的刑罚裁量权。现实世界中,不存在绝对的刑罚裁量权,关键是刑罚裁量的尺度设置是否合乎时宜。以制定数量化的量刑指南,合理限缩法官的刑罚裁量空间为重点,同时辅之以建构适用于所有刑事案件的相对独立的量刑程序,是我国量刑治理模式的理性选择。2010年10月1日开始在全国试行的两个量刑指导"意见"虽总体定位尚可,但也存在诸多问题,有待进一步研究和完善。

Imbalances and low credibility of sentencing are the two fundamental problems in sentencing practice in China.The procedure governance model,an absolute independent sentencing procedure,is said to have limited effect,short of support and will be facing difficulties.The effect of the substantive governance model is said to be immediate and easy to enforce,but controversially,it is quite easy to undue the judge＇s discretion on criminal sentencing.In the real world,there can be no absolute penalty discretion.The key is to consider the penalty in an appropriate scale.A rational choice for the sentencing governance model is to develop quantitative standard with substantive rules,reasonably limited the judge＇ s discretion on penalty and supported by relatively independent sentencing procedure that apply to all criminal cases.Commencing from 1st October 2010,the two sentencing guidance＂opinions＂are on trial around the country.It is generally perceived that the＂opinions＂are acceptable but still existing many problems and therefore need to be further studied and improved.