【作者】 余辉；

【导师】 丁友勤；

【作者基本信息】 中南财经政法大学 ， 法律（法学）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 量刑是刑事司法的重要环节,量刑方法是其中的关键,日本学者曾根威彦也指出:量刑问题是刑法理论的缩图,而公正的量刑方法则是科学量刑的前提。但在刑法研究中,“定罪”仍然是研究焦点,对于“量刑”及其中的量刑方法研究一直较为薄弱,在此背景下,本文以量刑方法为研究对象,运用理论分析法,在充分了解研究内容的前提下对各种相关理论进行分析,指出现行量刑方法的不足,而后以科学的理论为指导,构建一个合理实用的量刑方法;运用比较分析法,通过对国外量刑方法的介绍与分析,本着以我为主的原则,汲取他国量刑方法可取之处,为我国构建科学的量刑方法而服务;除此之外,文章结合实务案例,采用了实证分析法,将说理与实证相结合,寓理于实践,增强本论的说服力,在量刑方法的具体实现部分,加入案例分析,让本论之量刑方法更加直观与明确。在文章结构上,除引言与结语外,共分为三部分。第一部分对包括现行量刑方法在内的,国内外具有代表性的量刑方法进行介评,分析各量刑方法之利弊,说明现行或曾经存在量刑方法的不完善,在此基础上引出责任上限说量刑方法。在针对国外典型量刑方法进行的介绍中,以美国作为英美法系代表,德、日作为大陆法系代表,进行量刑方法的评介;国内以存续时间最长的估堆式量刑法、争议最大的数量化量刑法、现行的规范化量刑法以及新兴的并合主义量刑法为代表,进行介绍。无论是何种量刑方法,都具有不足,责任上限说量刑方法是在汲取众量刑方法精华,规避各方法之不足的基础上形成的。第二部分针对该论进行较为详细之介绍,进一步说明主张该论的主要理由。责任上限说量刑方法是指以责任上限说为理论内核,以规范化为表现形式,兼采众多量刑方法之优势的量刑方法。其具有以责任上限说为理论内核、以规范化为表现形式、兼顾各量刑方法之优势、以规范自由裁量权为直接目的、以“点”的理论确定责任刑上限等九大特点;具备符合消极责任主义精神、有助于解决刑罚二律背反问题与克服点之下论的缺陷等五大优势,在理论上优于其他量刑方法,进一步强调了该量刑方法是适合我国的量刑方法。最后部分主要研究该量刑方法的司法适用问题。本论意在为实务提供一条量刑方法构造思路,因此该章首节主要针对其具体适用的问题,提出了四步走的具体量刑步骤。第一步为量刑起点的确定。确定量刑起点,是对具体犯罪进行量刑的第一步,只有确认了量刑起点才能进行后续的责任刑以及预防刑的裁量。该论采取规范化量刑法对于量刑起点的概念规定,以犯罪常态为确定量刑起点的依据,一般的犯罪形态为起点,非常的形态由后续的责任刑与预防刑来调节。第二步为责任刑的确定。责任刑又称为报应刑,要确定责任刑必须找准影响责任刑的量刑情节,在确定相应的责任刑情节时要做到不遗漏情节,也要严禁重复评价。第三步是进行预防刑的调节。根据并合主义的责任上限说,在确定责任刑点后,要得到最后宣告刑还需要考察行为人的预防必要性,对刑罚量进行调节。量刑阶段的预防刑指的是特殊预防,只针对行为人自身的预防必要性而言,不再单独考虑一般预防必要性。预防刑的调节也由相关的量刑情节决定,在确定预防刑量刑情节时也需要避免遗漏与重复。最后确定宣告刑。经过预防刑的调节,最后一步就是得出宣告刑,根据预防刑调节结果的不同,宣告刑可以分为可直接确定的宣告刑与间接确定的宣告刑。其中间接产生的宣告刑争议较多,在确定间接的宣告刑时需要结合不同的刑罚或非刑罚手段考虑因素,进行责任与预防的整体性评价。虽该论理论优势明显且可操作性强,但在当下司法环境下,要完全发挥责任上限说的作用还存在一些障碍,作者在次节对这些障碍做了初步分析,并为解决这些问题提出自己的建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Sentencing is an important link in criminal justice,and the method of sentencing is the key.Japanese scholar Sone Takehiko also pointed out that the issue of sentencing is a miniature of the theory of criminal law,and a fair sentencing method is the premise of scientific sentencing.However,in the research of criminal law,"conviction" is still the focus of research.The research on "sentencing" and its methods of sentencing has been relatively weak.In this context,this article takes sentencing methods as the research object and uses theoretical analysis to fully understand the research.Under the premise of the content,various related theories are analyzed,pointing out the shortcomings of the current sentencing methods,and then guided by scientific theories to construct a reasonable and practical sentencing method;using comparative analysis,through the introduction and analysis of foreign sentencing methods,In line with the principle of self-centeredness,we draw on the merits of other countries’ sentencing methods to serve our country’s construction of a scientific sentencing method;in addition,the article combines practical cases and adopts empirical analysis,combining reasoning and empirical research.Integrating reason into practice strengthens the persuasive power of this theory.In the concrete realization of the sentencing method,case analysis is added to make the sentencing method of this theory more intuitive and clear.In the structure,the full text is divided into three parts in addition to the introduction and conclusion.The first part introduces and evaluates the representative sentencing methods at home and abroad,including the current sentencing methods,analyzes the pros and cons of each sentencing method,and explains the imperfections of the current or past sentencing methods,and on this basis leads to the upper limit of liability sentencing.method.In the introduction to foreign related sentencing methods,the United States is used as the representative of the common law system and Germany and Japan are the representatives of the civil law system to evaluate the sentencing methods;in the country,the longest-lived assessment-based sentencing law is the most controversial.The Quantitative Sentencing Law,the current standardized Sentencing Law and the emerging Ambiguity Sentencing Law will be introduced.No matter what kind of sentencing method is,there are deficiencies.The upper limit of liability said sentencing method is formed on the basis of absorbing the essence of sentencing methods and avoiding the deficiencies of various methods.The second part introduces the theory in more detail,and further explains the main reasons for advocating the theory.The upper limit of liability theory of sentencing method refers to a method of sentencing that takes the upper limit of liability theory as the core of the theory,takes standardization as the form of expression,and uses the advantages of many sentencing methods.It has nine major characteristics including the theory of upper limit of liability as the theoretical core,standardization as the form of expression,taking into account the advantages of various sentencing methods,the direct purpose of standardizing discretion,and the theory of "points" to determine the upper limit of liability and punishment;The spirit of accountability,the five advantages that help solve the problem of criminal punishment and overcome the shortcomings of the point of view,are theoretically superior to other sentencing methods,and further emphasize that this sentencing method is suitable for our country.The last part mainly studies the judicial application of the sentencing method.The proposal of this theory is intended to provide a practical way of constructing sentencing methods.However,in the current judicial environment,there are still some obstacles to fully play the role of the upper limit of responsibility theory.The author makes a preliminary analysis of these obstacles and proposes to solve these problems.My own suggestion.The second section of this chapter puts forward a four-step specific sentencing procedure for its specific application.The first step is to determine the starting point of sentencing.Determining the starting point of sentencing is the first step in the sentencing of a specific crime.Only when the starting point of sentencing is confirmed can the follow-up judgment of liability and preventive punishment be carried out.This theory adopts the standardization of the sentencing law for the concept of the starting point of sentencing.The normal state of the crime is the basis for determining the starting point of the sentencing,the general form of crime is the starting point,and the extraordinary form is regulated by the subsequent liability penalty and preventive penalty.The second step is to determine the liability penalty.Responsibility penalty can also be called retribution penalty,that is,the offender chooses the criminal act based on his own will,and the penalty is justified as the liquidation of his responsibility.To determine the liability penalty,it is necessary to find out the sentencing circumstances that affect the liability penalty.When determining the corresponding liability penalty,the circumstances must not be omitted,and repeated evaluations must be strictly prohibited.The third step is to adjust preventive punishment.According to the theory of the upper limit of liability of merging doctrine,after determining the point of responsibility,to obtain the final sentence,it is necessary to examine the necessity of prevention of the perpetrator and adjust the point of responsibility.Preventive punishment at the sentencing stage refers to special prevention,which is only for the perpetrator’s own prevention necessity,and no longer considers the general prevention necessity separately.The adjustment of preventive punishment is also determined by the relevant sentencing circumstances,and omissions and repetitions should also be avoided when determining the preventive sentencing circumstances.The sentence was finally confirmed.After the adjustment of preventive punishment,the final step is to obtain the declaration sentence.According to the different results of preventive punishment adjustment,the declaration sentence can be divided into directly determinable declaring punishment and indirect declaring punishment.Among them,there are more controversies about indirect declaring sentences.When determining indirect declaring sentences,it is necessary to consider factors of different penal or non-penalty means to conduct an overall evaluation of responsibility and prevention.更多还原