Evaluating New Zealand’s restorative promise: the impact of legislative design on the practice of restorative justice

ABSTRACT

Restorative justice is regarded in modern criminal justice systems as one approach to address inadequacies in the conventional justice model. New Zealand has become a leader in implementing legislatively mandated restorative procedures. This reputation is due in part to a handful of supportive statutes: the Sentencing Act 2002, the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, the Parole Act 2002, the Corrections Act 2004 and subsequent amendments to those acts. In this article, I evaluate the practices bolstered by these acts and how effectively they operate, accounting for how legislative design may contribute to achievements and shortcomings in New Zealand's restorative justice programmes. I supplement the results by comparing New Zealand's efforts to those in Vermont, a U.S. state similarly well-regarded for its restorative policies. The evaluation of each jurisdiction's restorative justice programme is based on metrics for restorative success from Bazemore and Schiff (2005. Juvenile justice reform and restorative justice: building theory and policy from practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing). I employ qualitative and quantitative data, surveying existing evaluations of restorative justice in New Zealand and Vermont, collecting longitudinal statistics, and conducting interviews with restorative justice practitioners. Overall, this analysis reveals that the design of restorative justice programmes requires negotiation; it is difficult to balance the dimensions of effective restorative justice with the needs of modern justice systems.     

量刑不均的立法解决

量刑不均作为现阶段危害法治的重要因素,日益引起人们的关注。但引起量刑不均的原因是多方面的,也很复杂。从立法、法律的角度分析量刑不均的表现及成因,并借鉴国外先进的立法经验,提出重构量刑原则、建立"罪刑阶梯"、完善量刑程序的立法对策。     

论规范化量刑

规范化量刑是对量刑这种司法活动或制度的一种改革,是指使得量刑合乎约定俗成或法律明文规定的标准。规范化量刑不仅要求量刑公正而且要求其具有透明性,这就要求增加控辩双方关于量刑的话语权和将量刑工作纳入法庭审判;做到规范化量刑首先要遵循规范化量刑的必要原则,坚持量刑程序公开、检察监督、罪责相称的原则,其次要采取一些科学合理的量刑方法。只有做到规范化量刑才能坚持科学的量刑观,才能保证刑罚权的正确行使,才能树立司法的公信力和权威性,才能实现社会和谐。     

美国量刑委员会制度探略——兼评我国最高人民法院司法解释制度

美国量刑委员会制度始建于上世纪70年代,该制度从创设之初就遭受质疑。对此,美国联邦最高法院经由一系列判例进行了阐释和廓清,确立其法律地位,在刑事司法领域发挥着重大作用,一定程度上反映了美国在司法解释问题上的态度。美国量刑委员会制定的量刑指南与我国最高人民法院的司法解释制度有相似之处,因此,对美国量刑委员会制度予以探讨,可藉以检视我国司法解释领域的失范现象,并对推进我国司法解释制度改革提供参考。     

《尚书·吕刑》刑法思想刍议

《吕刑》是《尚书》中专门谈论刑法的一篇著作,以周穆王诰谕的形式颁布。著作中针对苗民酷刑,提出了慎罚明德的刑法指导思想;规定了量刑定罪的原则,其中包括“罪疑有赦”原则,“上下比罪”制度,对量刑要具体分析等;提出了较完整的“祥刑”体系,并对诸侯执政有所要求,成为中国古代最为完整的刑法体系纲领。     

理想的量刑制度

根据1984的量刑改革法案,美国量刑委员会为联邦刑事法律系统制定了量刑指南。但该指南既没有满足法案的期待,也没有提供一个全面性的、可操作性的制度。一个现代的、有原则的和可操作的量刑制度,应当明确首要的目标和必要的起草原则;还应当构建一个可向理想性制度转化的可操作性制度,并鼓励这个制度保持其运用的内在一致性以及能够不断的改良。     

比较法视野中的定罪事实与量刑事实之证明——严格证明与自由证明的具体运用

定罪事实与量刑事实的划分在证据法上的意义在于,对定罪事实必须进行严格证明,而对狭义量刑事实及某些属于犯罪事实的量刑情节,允许进行自由证明.严格证明与自由证明在可以运用的证据范围、证据调查方法和证明标准等方面存在差异.对定罪事实的严格证明体现了证据法对于权力的制约功能,对量刑事实进行自由证明则综合考虑了减少诉讼成本、明确主要争点和扩大有利于被告人之量刑资料的适用机会等多种因素.作为对自由证明的限制,在量刑阶段,除了必须保障被告人对量刑资料与信息的知情权和异议权、获得律师帮助权等各项权利之外,审判还应该被划分为定罪与量刑两个互相分离的阶段,以防止不可采的品格证据所产生的不公正对定罪造成影响.     

Unraveling the effect of offender citizenship status on federal sentencing outcomes

A large body of social science literature has focused on the factors that influence sentencing outcomes within the federal court system. A neglected variable in this line of research is the citizenship status of the offender. Using the United States Sentencing Commission’s Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences data from 2006, the present study examines the effect of citizenship status on the likelihood of incarceration and the length of the prison sentence. This study extends previous research in three ways: first, by examining citizenship status using post-Booker data; second, exploring the differences between citizens, legal aliens, and illegal aliens rather than comparing all non-citizens to US citizens; and third, examining all offenses rather than only drug offenses. Most importantly, this study partitions the data by citizenship status to determine if the effects of race/ethnicity and other variables (e.g., type of offense and level of education) vary by citizenship status. The results demonstrate that both legal and illegal aliens have a higher probability of incarceration than similarly-situated US citizens, but that the sentences imposed on illegal aliens are shorter than those imposed on citizens. However, different results emerged when the data were partitioned by citizenship status. Judges imposed shorter prison sentences on Latino citizens, but longer prison sentences on Latino illegal aliens. These results are discussed in relation to theoretical explanations and policy implications.     

论量刑歧视

量刑歧视与量刑偏差相同之处在于二者都属量刑不公;相异之处在于,量刑偏差倾向于凸显量刑活动的客观结果,量刑歧视更多地显示法官在量刑活动中的虚假化道德判断等主观倾向。量刑歧视中的道德谱系主要讨论法官道德和被告人道德两大部分,对量刑歧视中道德谱系的考察有助于分析量刑歧视产生的原因,从而利于寻找解决量刑歧视的对策。     

论责任主义在量刑原则中的实现

在量刑时如何解决行为责任和行为人责任之间的关系问题上,必须有量刑原则予以指导。责任刑限制预防刑作为量刑中的责任主义的核心表述,不仅明确了两者之间的关系,而且体现了先进的刑法理念,理所当然应成为我国刑法中的一项量刑原则。该原则与刑事责任理论衔接时并不发生本质的冲突,关键在于我们如何规定和解释。