王崇. 论法官的非犯罪化裁量权[J]. 《信阳师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》, 2020, 40(3): 36-41. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0964.2020.03.007
引用本文: 王崇. 论法官的非犯罪化裁量权[J]. 《信阳师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》, 2020, 40(3): 36-41. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0964.2020.03.007
WANG Chong. On Judges' Decriminalization Discretion[J]. The journal of xinyang normal university (philosophy and social science edition), 2020, 40(3): 36-41. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0964.2020.03.007
Citation: WANG Chong. On Judges' Decriminalization Discretion[J]. The journal of xinyang normal university (philosophy and social science edition), 2020, 40(3): 36-41. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0964.2020.03.007

论法官的非犯罪化裁量权

On Judges' Decriminalization Discretion

  • 摘要: 根据现行法律规定,法官有权超越法定情节减轻或免除刑罚,但是,对符合犯罪条件的行为,无论情节轻重,宣告有罪是法官唯一的选择。非犯罪化是宽严相济刑事政策的宽之极点,亦应是法官裁量的重要内容。在司法中的非犯罪化需要人民法院与人民检察院形成合力,审判权的能动性决定了法官应当拥有非犯罪化裁量权,对无须定罪的被告人不作有罪宣告。我国可以借鉴意大利暂缓判决制度,在允许法官确定有罪行为的同时审查定罪必要性,将审判阶段作为非犯罪化裁量的“最终阵地”。

     

    Abstract: In accordance with existing legal provisions, judges can mitigate or exempt penalty beyond the statutory circumstances. However, the only choice for judges is to declare guilty of acts that meet the conditions of crime, regardless of the minor or seriousness of the circumstances. Decriminalization is the extreme of leniency in the criminal policy of Combining Leniency with severity, and it should also be an important content of judges' discretion. Decriminalization of justice requires the joint efforts of the People's Court and the People's Procuratorate, and the initiative of judicial determines that the judges should have the right of decriminalization, excluding the accused who need not be convicted from the conviction judgment. We can learn from Italy's suspension of judgment, allow judges to review the necessity of conviction while determining the crime, and regard the trial stage as the final position of decriminalization discretion.

     

/

返回文章
返回