论我国检察机关量刑建议制度的规范与完善
|
摘要
自1998年至今,检察机关量刑建议制度在我国经历了一个由无至有的过程。经过了十几年的试点,不少地方都在检察机关量刑建议方面做出了积极的努力。目前,全国三十多个省(包括自治区、直辖市)的检察机关基本上都开展了量刑建议工作。检察机关量刑建议制度的诞生是多种因素共同作用的结果,它是针对我国量刑程序相对不透明、法官的综合素质不高、检察机关对量刑程序缺乏足够的监督等问题而产生的,应该说具有一定的现实背景。经过了一系列的理论探讨,它符合诉讼原理、有利于实现程序正义、符合权力制约的基本理论,可以说具有丰厚的法理学基础。它的建立具有合宪性与合法性基础,对于贯彻宽严相济的刑事司法政策、强化法律监督、提高法律工作者的整体素质等也都有着重要的现实意义。同时,它满足当代法经济学的基本要求,符合当前国际发展的大趋势,它作为我国渐进式的司法改革中的一个重要进程,对我国检察制度的完善有着重要的影响。当然,作为一项新的制度,检察机关量刑建议制度的建立并不是一帆风顺的,它同样经历了一个各种质疑、反对的声音与坚持、捍卫的观点之间的较量与博弈的过程。从目前的情况看,很多地方都展开了相关的试点工作,制度整体而言正处于良性发展之中,收到了显著的效果,无可置疑的是,由于相关配套制度缺失等,量刑建议制度在试点过程中也暴露出了一些问题,需要我们在今后实践与研究中认真加以解决。对我国检察机关量刑建议制度进行规范需要从其自身的规范与建立相关的配套制度两方面同时出发。一方面,进一步规范、完善其法律依据、适用范围、行使方式以及效力等多方面的具体规定,另一方面,需要建立定罪量刑程序分立、证据开示、量刑建议权的监督制约机制等配套制度。相信,在理论界与学术界的共同努力与关注之下,检察机关量刑建议制度的规范与完善指日可待。
The prosecutor’s proposing system of procurator organs has experienced a course from nonexistence to existence since 1998.After more than ten years of demonstration pilot project. Many procurator organs have made great efforts in the area of prosecutor’s proposing in many places. Nowadays , the procurator organs in more than 30 provinces including autonomous regions and municipalities have carried out prosecutor’s proposing work. The birth of prosecutor’s proposing systems is based on the result of the combined action of many factors ,and it has come into being just because a series of problems such as the covert procedure of measurement of penalty in our country , the lower overall quality of the judges and the lack of enough control by prosecuting authority in contentious procedure,therefore, it has certain social background. After a series of theoretical investigation,it lives up to the principle of lawsuit , it is beneficial to realization of procedural justice and it corresponds the principal theory of power restrain,so it is fully based on jurisprudence., and it also possesses and constitutionality and legality , which has realistic significance for us to put criminal policy of the law into practice leniency and strictness, to improve the overall quality of legal professionals .At the same,it can satisfy the basic requirements of the present journal of law and economics, accord with the general trend of the present international development . As a necessary process of progressive development in the area of judicial reforms, it has important influence on the perfection of the prosecution systems in our country. Of course ,as a new system , the establishment of prosecutor’s proposing system by the procurator organs is not always roses all the way,It has also experienced the course of fight among all kinds of doubts ,objections ,insistence ,defence and standpoints. From the present situation, some related experimental work has been carried in many places,and the new system has been on the track of sound progress overall,the achievements are very remarkable. however,there is no doubt that owing to the lack of supporting policies, some problems come out during the course of experimental work, which need to be carefully studied and solved in the practice later. The specification of prosecutor’s proposing system requires the establishment of supporting policies and the perfection of the system itself. On the one hand the specific provision of legal basis , applicable scopes , exercise styles and the efficacy need further consummating ,on the other hand ,some related systems need to be established such as the separation of the procedure of punishment fits the crime ,the disclosure of evidence ,the restriction to the monitoring of prosecutor’s proposing system . It is believed that with the efforts and concerns of theory horizon and academic world, the specification and perfection of prosecutor’s proposing system in procurator organs can be expected soon。
The prosecutor’s proposing system of procurator organs has experienced a course from nonexistence to existence since 1998.After more than ten years of demonstration pilot project. Many procurator organs have made great efforts in the area of prosecutor’s proposing in many places. Nowadays , the procurator organs in more than 30 provinces including autonomous regions and municipalities have carried out prosecutor’s proposing work. The birth of prosecutor’s proposing systems is based on the result of the combined action of many factors ,and it has come into being just because a series of problems such as the covert procedure of measurement of penalty in our country , the lower overall quality of the judges and the lack of enough control by prosecuting authority in contentious procedure,therefore, it has certain social background. After a series of theoretical investigation,it lives up to the principle of lawsuit , it is beneficial to realization of procedural justice and it corresponds the principal theory of power restrain,so it is fully based on jurisprudence., and it also possesses and constitutionality and legality , which has realistic significance for us to put criminal policy of the law into practice leniency and strictness, to improve the overall quality of legal professionals .At the same,it can satisfy the basic requirements of the present journal of law and economics, accord with the general trend of the present international development . As a necessary process of progressive development in the area of judicial reforms, it has important influence on the perfection of the prosecution systems in our country. Of course ,as a new system , the establishment of prosecutor’s proposing system by the procurator organs is not always roses all the way,It has also experienced the course of fight among all kinds of doubts ,objections ,insistence ,defence and standpoints. From the present situation, some related experimental work has been carried in many places,and the new system has been on the track of sound progress overall,the achievements are very remarkable. however,there is no doubt that owing to the lack of supporting policies, some problems come out during the course of experimental work, which need to be carefully studied and solved in the practice later. The specification of prosecutor’s proposing system requires the establishment of supporting policies and the perfection of the system itself. On the one hand the specific provision of legal basis , applicable scopes , exercise styles and the efficacy need further consummating ,on the other hand ,some related systems need to be established such as the separation of the procedure of punishment fits the crime ,the disclosure of evidence ,the restriction to the monitoring of prosecutor’s proposing system . It is believed that with the efforts and concerns of theory horizon and academic world, the specification and perfection of prosecutor’s proposing system in procurator organs can be expected soon。
引文
[1][法]孟德斯鸠,张雁深译.论法的精神(上册)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.67.
[2]庞良程.量刑建议可行性研究[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002,(4).111.
[3]1郭煌,刘平.矫治量刑失衡:建议从五方面入手[N].检察日报,2005-12-28(3).
[5]龚培华,张少林.论检察机关的量刑请求权[J].中国刑事法杂志,2001,4(22).
[6]吴建明,马敏.检察机关量刑建议权的法理思考[N].法制日报,2000-9-15(3).
[7]李和仁.量刑建议:摸索中的理论与实践——量刑建议制度研讨会综述[J].人民检察,2001,(11).24.
[1]郑承华.检察机关求刑权应有之意[J].台声.新视角,2005,(8).42.
[2]1姜伟.公诉制度教程[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.21.
[3]李和仁.量刑建议:摸索中的理论与实践——量刑建议制度研讨会综述[J].人民检察,2001,(11).24.
[2]彭晔.检察机关量刑建议权的属性和地位研究[J].法商论丛,2009,(5).13.
[1]冀祥德.构建中国的量刑建议权制度[J].法商研究,2005,(4).117.
[2]陈瑞华.刑事审判原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.56—61.
[3]陈瑞华.刑事审判原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.59.
[1]卢宇蓉,王明达.论刑事审判中的自由裁量权[J]中外法学,2001(3).319.
[2]宋英辉.刑事诉讼目的论[M].中国人民公安大学出版社,1995.17.
[1]左卫民.刑事程序问题研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.82-83.
[1]江礼华,杨诚.外国刑事诉讼制度探微[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.133.
[1]曾康.国外量刑建议制度考评与借鉴[J].求索,2004,(7).101—104.
[1]孔繁平.山东枣庄:八成量刑建议被采纳[N].检察日报,2004-3-10(2).
[2]胡焕宏.检察机关求刑制度及其实施情况调研[C].华东刑事司法评论(第7卷).北京:法律出版社,2004.283.
[3]刘星.从量刑建议权的价值取向谈如何开展量刑建议改革[J].法学杂志,2005.(6),114..
[1]曹振海,宋敏.量刑建议制度应当缓行[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002,(4).45.
[1]王顺安,徐明明.检察机关量刑建议权及其操作[J].法学杂志,2003,(11).25.
[1]郭兴莲.关于量刑建议制度试行中的几个问题[J].人民检察,2001,(11)28.
[2]陈光中.关于量刑建议制度的几点看法[N].检察日报,2001-10-6(3).
[1]孙长永.当事人主义刑事诉讼与证据开示[J].法律科学,2000,(4).83.
[1][法]孟德斯鸠,张雁深译.论法的精神(上册)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[2][美]E.博登海默著,邓正来译.法理学,法哲学与法律方法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[3]庞良程.量刑建议可行性研究[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002,(4).
[4]郭煌,刘平.矫治量刑失衡:建议从五方面入手[N].检察日报,2005-12-28(3).
[5]龚培华,张少林.论检察机关的量刑请求权[J].中国刑事法杂志,2001,(4).
[6]吴建明,马敏.检察机关量刑建议权的法理思考[N].法制日报,2000-9-15(3).
[7]李和仁.量刑建议:摸索中的理论与实践——量刑建议制度研讨会综述[J].人民检察,2001,(11).
[8]郑承华.检察机关求刑权应有之意[J].台声.新视角,2005,(8).
[9]姜伟.公诉制度教程[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[10]龙宗智.刑事公诉权与条件说[J].人民检察,1999,(3).
[11]彭晔.检察机关量刑建议权的属性和地位研究[J].法商论丛,2009,(5).
[12]冀祥德.构建中国的量刑建议权制度[J].法商研究,2005,(4).
[13]陈瑞华.刑事审判原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[14]卢宇蓉,王明达.论刑事审判中的自由裁量权[J]中外法学,2001,(3).
[15]宋英辉.刑事诉讼目的论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,1995.
[16]左卫民.刑事程序问题研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[17]江礼华,杨诚.外国刑事诉讼制度探微[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[18]曾康.国外量刑建议制度考评与借鉴[J].求索,2004,(7).
[19]孔繁平.山东枣庄:八成量刑建议被采纳[N].检察日报,2004-3-10(2).
[20]胡焕宏.检察机关求刑制度及其实施情况调研[C].华东刑事司法评论(第7卷).北京:法律出版社,2004.
[21]曹振海,宋敏.量刑建议制度应当缓行[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002,(4).
[22]王顺安,徐明明.检察机关量刑建议权及其操作[J].法学杂志,2003,(11).
[23]郭兴莲.关于量刑建议制度试行中的几个问题[J].人民检察,2001,(11).
[24]陈光中.关于量刑建议制度的几点看法[N].检察日报,2001-10-6(3).
[25]孙长永.当事人主义刑事诉讼与证据开示[J].法律科学,2000,(4).
[2]庞良程.量刑建议可行性研究[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002,(4).111.
[3]1郭煌,刘平.矫治量刑失衡:建议从五方面入手[N].检察日报,2005-12-28(3).
[5]龚培华,张少林.论检察机关的量刑请求权[J].中国刑事法杂志,2001,4(22).
[6]吴建明,马敏.检察机关量刑建议权的法理思考[N].法制日报,2000-9-15(3).
[7]李和仁.量刑建议:摸索中的理论与实践——量刑建议制度研讨会综述[J].人民检察,2001,(11).24.
[1]郑承华.检察机关求刑权应有之意[J].台声.新视角,2005,(8).42.
[2]1姜伟.公诉制度教程[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.21.
[3]李和仁.量刑建议:摸索中的理论与实践——量刑建议制度研讨会综述[J].人民检察,2001,(11).24.
[2]彭晔.检察机关量刑建议权的属性和地位研究[J].法商论丛,2009,(5).13.
[1]冀祥德.构建中国的量刑建议权制度[J].法商研究,2005,(4).117.
[2]陈瑞华.刑事审判原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.56—61.
[3]陈瑞华.刑事审判原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.59.
[1]卢宇蓉,王明达.论刑事审判中的自由裁量权[J]中外法学,2001(3).319.
[2]宋英辉.刑事诉讼目的论[M].中国人民公安大学出版社,1995.17.
[1]左卫民.刑事程序问题研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.82-83.
[1]江礼华,杨诚.外国刑事诉讼制度探微[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.133.
[1]曾康.国外量刑建议制度考评与借鉴[J].求索,2004,(7).101—104.
[1]孔繁平.山东枣庄:八成量刑建议被采纳[N].检察日报,2004-3-10(2).
[2]胡焕宏.检察机关求刑制度及其实施情况调研[C].华东刑事司法评论(第7卷).北京:法律出版社,2004.283.
[3]刘星.从量刑建议权的价值取向谈如何开展量刑建议改革[J].法学杂志,2005.(6),114..
[1]曹振海,宋敏.量刑建议制度应当缓行[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002,(4).45.
[1]王顺安,徐明明.检察机关量刑建议权及其操作[J].法学杂志,2003,(11).25.
[1]郭兴莲.关于量刑建议制度试行中的几个问题[J].人民检察,2001,(11)28.
[2]陈光中.关于量刑建议制度的几点看法[N].检察日报,2001-10-6(3).
[1]孙长永.当事人主义刑事诉讼与证据开示[J].法律科学,2000,(4).83.
[1][法]孟德斯鸠,张雁深译.论法的精神(上册)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[2][美]E.博登海默著,邓正来译.法理学,法哲学与法律方法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[3]庞良程.量刑建议可行性研究[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002,(4).
[4]郭煌,刘平.矫治量刑失衡:建议从五方面入手[N].检察日报,2005-12-28(3).
[5]龚培华,张少林.论检察机关的量刑请求权[J].中国刑事法杂志,2001,(4).
[6]吴建明,马敏.检察机关量刑建议权的法理思考[N].法制日报,2000-9-15(3).
[7]李和仁.量刑建议:摸索中的理论与实践——量刑建议制度研讨会综述[J].人民检察,2001,(11).
[8]郑承华.检察机关求刑权应有之意[J].台声.新视角,2005,(8).
[9]姜伟.公诉制度教程[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[10]龙宗智.刑事公诉权与条件说[J].人民检察,1999,(3).
[11]彭晔.检察机关量刑建议权的属性和地位研究[J].法商论丛,2009,(5).
[12]冀祥德.构建中国的量刑建议权制度[J].法商研究,2005,(4).
[13]陈瑞华.刑事审判原理[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[14]卢宇蓉,王明达.论刑事审判中的自由裁量权[J]中外法学,2001,(3).
[15]宋英辉.刑事诉讼目的论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,1995.
[16]左卫民.刑事程序问题研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[17]江礼华,杨诚.外国刑事诉讼制度探微[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[18]曾康.国外量刑建议制度考评与借鉴[J].求索,2004,(7).
[19]孔繁平.山东枣庄:八成量刑建议被采纳[N].检察日报,2004-3-10(2).
[20]胡焕宏.检察机关求刑制度及其实施情况调研[C].华东刑事司法评论(第7卷).北京:法律出版社,2004.
[21]曹振海,宋敏.量刑建议制度应当缓行[J].国家检察官学院学报,2002,(4).
[22]王顺安,徐明明.检察机关量刑建议权及其操作[J].法学杂志,2003,(11).
[23]郭兴莲.关于量刑建议制度试行中的几个问题[J].人民检察,2001,(11).
[24]陈光中.关于量刑建议制度的几点看法[N].检察日报,2001-10-6(3).
[25]孙长永.当事人主义刑事诉讼与证据开示[J].法律科学,2000,(4).