“同案不同判”的反向审视与规则建构——基于刑事责任本体论的思考

Reverse Examination and Rule Establishment of “Different Judgments for the Exact Same Case”——Reflections on the ontology of criminal responsibility

理论界与实务界对于“同案同判”的非理性坚守以及“同案不同判”的极端化批判,仅仅是刑事责任虚无化境遇下罪刑之间的“调节器”功能失灵所引致困惑中的冰山一角。绝对的“同案”本不存在,“同案不同判”现象的出现亦有其合理的一面。对此,应当放弃对刑事裁判量刑结果形式化的追求,采用逆向思维模式,将焦点转向对定性与定量“同”与“不同”之间充分的说理论证。同案不同判的规则建构,应当以罪刑法定为底线坚守,程序正义为形式保障,刑事责任功能发挥为实体支撑,其中,刑事责任的量的侧面是核心。

Theorists and practitioners have irrationally adhered to the principle of“exact same judgments for the same case”and harshly criticized the principle of“different judgments for the exact same case”.It is just the tip of the iceberg of confusion caused by the“regulator”function failure between crime and punishment due to the nihility of criminal responsibility.There really is no totally“same case”,and it is rational that there is“different judgments for the exact same case”.Therefore,we should abandon the pursuit of formalization of the sentencing results of criminal adjudications,and adopt the reverse thinking mode centering on the full theoretical proof between the qualitative and quantitative“sameness”and“difference”.For the rule establishment of“different judgments for the exact same case”,we should take the criminal law as the bottom line,the procedural justice as the formal guarantee,and the function of criminal responsibility as the substantive support,with the quantitative aspect of the criminal responsibility as the core.