死刑裁量的程序范式构想

Procedural Paradigm of Death Penalty Sentencing

死刑裁量基准是一个争议颇多的问题。在司法实践中,死刑立即执行和死缓尚未形成令人信服的清晰界分。死刑裁量的标准化与统一化不仅是一个实体法事项,更有赖于程序领域的框架支持。尽管建构独立的量刑程序已然接近于一种共识,但死刑判罚的决策应当以怎样具象化的方式被纳于其间,却并无定论。不可否认,司法裁量对于剥夺生命处罚的合乎情理取决于相关佐证过程的自洽程度,且应竭力排斥司法恣意化的倾向。通过将罪行恶劣程度、个人成长经历及教化可能性等评估步骤融合于独立式量刑程序的规划中,审慎适用死刑的宏观目标或许能获得更多的实现机会。当然,厘清诉讼法意义上的“死刑”内涵,以及理顺死刑案件的决策逻辑,加之相关诉讼行为和目标指向的明晰化,均不失为程序范式设计的必要前提。此外,审判组织的合理安排、量刑建议的功能实现、证明责任分配的务实布置,以及不同审级之间的妥善分工,共同组成了程序运行的配套机制。

The application of the death penalty in focus cases has always been a hot topic.In view of the great difference between"sentence of life"and"sentence of death",adopting a simple reasoning method in criminal judgment in such cases is not appropriate and the deeper causes of this problem are the vagueness,narrowness and lack of operability of the relevant judicial decision-making criteria.On the one hand,when judges make death penalty decisions,they tend to pay more attention to the specific performance of the defendant in criminal activities than to the evaluation of the soundness of his personality and the possibility of restoration from the perspective of socialization.On the other hand,the trial process of death penalty cases cannot provide a solid basis for the final judicial decision-making but rather strengthens the internal subjective bias of the judges.For the deprivation of the defendant's right to life,the reasonableness of judicial discretion depends on the self-consistency of the relevant proof process,and the tendency of judicial arbitrariness should be avoided as much as possible.The broader goal of the prudent application of the death penalty may have a better chance of being achieved if the steps of assessment of the severity of the crime,personal development and the likelihood of correction are integrated into the planning of an independent sentencing process in an orderly manner.Of course,the corresponding procedural framework requires the following consensuses as necessary prerequisites:(a)the death penalty with immediate execution and the death penalty with a two-year reprieve represent different types and intensities of punishment in the environment of procedural law,and should be treated differently;(b)death penalty decision-making should follow the logic process of"from the light to the heavy",otherwise it would easily create the paradox that the death penalty with immediate execution takes precedence over the death penalty with a two-year reprieve;(c)it is necessary not only to place the death penalty discretion in the special court process,but,more importantly,also to clarify concrete litigation conducts in this process and their objectives.Moreover,in terms of supporting arrangement of trial organization,the procedural creation of death penalty discretion should echo the social moral concept embedded in the people's jury system,and the functional presupposition of sentencing suggestions should be made full use of,so as to reasonably allocate the burden of proof at different stages.Such procedural paradigm should be embodied in the initial trial,and reasonably link the relief trial and death penalty review procedures,so as to achieve a proper division of labor between different trial levels.As a result,the specific choice between immediate execution or suspension of execution can no longer be summarized in a few words.The logical discourse based on empirical investigation not only is enough to exclude subjective assumptions but also can ensure its rigor and rationality through meticulous evidence analysis.