On The Proper Exercise And Reasonable Constraints Of Judge's Sentencing Discretion

This article explores the theme of the judge's sentencing discretion. Discretion has to make up for deficiencies in common law, to achieve universal justice and individual justice, balance, balance between justice and efficiency and other positive values should be reasonably exercised, could easily lead to sentencing because of an imbalance has affected the credibility of justice, judicial induced corruption and other negative values should be reasonably regulated. China's current sentencing discretion there is a big application space, which is a real focus on fair judicial tradition, uneven regional development, values diversity, social transformation of fast development, the criminal policy of combining punishment with leniency determined by factors such as The. But there are also generally re-conviction, light sentencing, sentencing the lack of reasonable foundation, sentence is too arbitrary, opaque and other practical shortcomings of the sentencing process.In order to effectively guarantee the public sentencing judge, justice, safeguard judicial credibility, establish judicial authority, the Central began a sentencing reform experiment and explore. "Norms of discretion, the sentencing court into the program" become the central importance of judicial reform projects identified and started top-down implementation. Standardized sentencing judge's sentencing discretion played a regulatory role, to some extent contributed to a balanced sentence, the realization of open trial, establish the credibility of justice and judicial authority has played a positive role; but its precise mode of operation also enables the sentencing vastly different penalty cases tend to mechanization, so some cases can not exercise judicial discretion to achieve the best legal effect and social effect. In this paper, the maximum guarantee substantive justice point of view, put forward on the sentencing discretion to make reasonable regulations of the few suggestions: First, on the basis of sound empirical research sentencing standardized, so that a more reasonable benchmark sentencing, Sentencing more specific, deviation from the description of the system be implemented in sentencing; second is to strengthen and standardize the procedural constraints, given the right of the parties involved in sentencing, a clear violation of the procedures of the legal consequences, and actively explore the "bundling" the trial court, and other new models, while strengthening the rationalization of that decision to promote the open ground sentencing; third is to improve the guidance system of criminal cases, giving guidance in criminal cases and to regulate the status of sources of law case production procedures, thereby promoting the realization of standardized sentencing; Fourth, improve the sentencing discretion of the inspection and supervision, through the establishment of Sentencing error evaluation system, multi-level communication mechanism for full coverage, real-time listening Court Review mechanism, to explore the implementation of conditional plea bargaining system and other means, the full development of inspection and supervision of the sentencing discretion of the restraining effect; fifth is to strengthen the construction of professionalism of judges , the judges elected by improving mechanisms to strengthen education and training of judges, the establishment of internal and external communication mechanisms, and the judge, promote the improvement of professionalism of judges, essentially sentencing discretion to protect the reasonable exercise.