酌定量刑情节规范适用的司法困境与优化路径

The Standardized Application of Discretionary Sentencing: Judicial Dilemma and Optimization Path

包含酌定情节在内的量刑情节的充分提取和理性评价,是实现个案量刑公正的关键环节。从纳入"规范量刑改革"范围的443份裁判文书样本可见,《量刑指导意见》所明示的常见酌定情节均得到法官的识别和适用,其实际作用力并不必然弱于法定情节,被告人预防刑的裁量更依赖酌定情节。然而,未被《量刑指导意见》明示的酌定情节,法官在量刑中鲜有提取,致使部分案件量刑缺失完整的事实根据。此外,酌定情节的适用还存在识别失当、作用力失衡、发挥作用的环节错位等问题,并且部分案件缓刑适用缺乏酌定情节支撑,这些均成为制约量刑公正充分实现的瓶颈。优化酌定情节的规范适用,应当在妥当配置法官自由裁量权的基础上,科学改良酌定情节适用的规范模式,合理设计量刑情节竞合的调节过程,清晰塑造缓刑适用的说理架构,从而实现案件量刑结果的适法与适当。

The full extraction and rational evaluation of sentencing circumstances, including discretionary circumstances, is of utmost importance to achieve justice in sentencing. According to the 443 samples of judicial documents included in the scope of "standardization reform of sentencing", the judges have recognized and applied the common discretionary circumstances expressed in the sentencing guidelines, whose actual force is not necessarily weaker than the statutory circumstances, and the discretion of the punishment of the defendant for prevention purposes is more dependent on discretionary circumstances. However, judges rarely extract the discretionary circumstances that are not explicitly expressed in the sentencing guidelines, resulting in the lack of a complete factual basis for sentencing in some cases. In addition, there are some problems in the application of discretionary circumstances, such as improper recognition, imbalance of force, mal-positioning of the influencing procedures, and the lack of support of discretionary circumstances in the application of probation in some cases, which have become the bottleneck restricting the full realization of justice in sentencing. To optimize the standardized application of discretionary circumstances, we should scientifically improve the normative model of the application of discretionary circumstances, properly design the adjustment process of confluence and cooperation of sentencing circumstances, and clearly shape the reasoning framework of the application of suspended sentence, so as to achieve the appropriate application of law and the appropriateness of sentencing results.