Improvement of sentencing Guidelines

Hye-kyung Kim
{"title":"Improvement of sentencing Guidelines","authors":"Hye-kyung Kim","doi":"10.22397/wlri.2022.38.2.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the establishment and application of the sentencing guidelines for murder crimes began in 2009, a total of 44 sentencing standards for crime types have been established or revised by the 8th Sentencing Committee over the past 13 years. And more than 90% of cases that are already subject to trial have sentencing standards. Now, it is necessary to explore the direction of the sentencing committee in the future and pursue righteous punishment and fair sentencing. \nHere is aimed to review some issues that need to be improved regarding the 'reasonable sentencing guideline' necessary to form a fair future of justice. First of all, based on the contents of the analysis of the application status of the sentencing guidelines, it is intended to analyze how the sentencing factors are actually affecting the application of the sentencing guidelines. Next will discuss whether the sentencing criteria should bind the court's judgment. This is because if the sentencing guideline does not bind the court, and it becomes a judicial practice to deviate from the sentencing guideline, it may not be necessary to establish the sentencing guidelines. In addition, the meaning of judges complying with the sentencing guidelines can be a criterion for evaluating the public's trust in judicial law. \nIn addition, it is necessary to verify the validity of the grounds for considering probation. Until now, among the special sentencing factors, the mitigation factor has been recognized as a positive factor for probation, and the aggravated factor has been cross-applied as a negative factor. However, it is necessary to determine whether such cross-application is reasonable. This is also a matter of connection between the two. In addition, the possibility of establishing the selection criteria for imprisonment and fines should be studied. The criminal law selectively stipulates imprisonment and fines for most crimes. Therefore, it will be necessary to objectively ensure the predictability of what punishment criminals will be imposed. \nFinally, we will look at the problem of harmony with the day fines system. This is because it is difficult to harmonize with the day fines system that converts the amount of illegality into days if the upper and lower limits of fines are set while creating the penalty standard for fines. \nThrough these studies, it is necessary to establish righteous punishment and fair sentencing, and to ensure the people's judicial trust through those.","PeriodicalId":430360,"journal":{"name":"Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22397/wlri.2022.38.2.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the establishment and application of the sentencing guidelines for murder crimes began in 2009, a total of 44 sentencing standards for crime types have been established or revised by the 8th Sentencing Committee over the past 13 years. And more than 90% of cases that are already subject to trial have sentencing standards. Now, it is necessary to explore the direction of the sentencing committee in the future and pursue righteous punishment and fair sentencing. Here is aimed to review some issues that need to be improved regarding the 'reasonable sentencing guideline' necessary to form a fair future of justice. First of all, based on the contents of the analysis of the application status of the sentencing guidelines, it is intended to analyze how the sentencing factors are actually affecting the application of the sentencing guidelines. Next will discuss whether the sentencing criteria should bind the court's judgment. This is because if the sentencing guideline does not bind the court, and it becomes a judicial practice to deviate from the sentencing guideline, it may not be necessary to establish the sentencing guidelines. In addition, the meaning of judges complying with the sentencing guidelines can be a criterion for evaluating the public's trust in judicial law. In addition, it is necessary to verify the validity of the grounds for considering probation. Until now, among the special sentencing factors, the mitigation factor has been recognized as a positive factor for probation, and the aggravated factor has been cross-applied as a negative factor. However, it is necessary to determine whether such cross-application is reasonable. This is also a matter of connection between the two. In addition, the possibility of establishing the selection criteria for imprisonment and fines should be studied. The criminal law selectively stipulates imprisonment and fines for most crimes. Therefore, it will be necessary to objectively ensure the predictability of what punishment criminals will be imposed. Finally, we will look at the problem of harmony with the day fines system. This is because it is difficult to harmonize with the day fines system that converts the amount of illegality into days if the upper and lower limits of fines are set while creating the penalty standard for fines. Through these studies, it is necessary to establish righteous punishment and fair sentencing, and to ensure the people's judicial trust through those.
改善量刑指引
自2009年凶杀犯罪量刑指南开始制定和适用以来,13年来,第八届量刑委员会共制定或修订了44项犯罪类型的量刑标准。超过90%的已经接受审判的案件都有量刑标准。现在,有必要探索未来量刑委员会的方向,追求正义的量刑和公平的量刑。本文旨在探讨构建公正司法的未来所必需的“合理量刑准则”中需要改进的一些问题。首先,在分析量刑指南适用现状的内容基础上,分析量刑因素实际上是如何影响量刑指南适用的。接下来将讨论量刑标准是否应约束法院的判决。这是因为,如果量刑指南对法院没有约束力,背离量刑指南成为司法实践,那么可能就没有必要制定量刑指南。此外,法官遵守量刑指南的意义可以作为评价公众对司法信任程度的一个标准。此外,有必要核实考虑缓刑的理由的有效性。迄今为止,在特殊量刑因素中,减刑因素被认定为缓刑的积极因素,加重因素被认定为缓刑的消极因素。但是,有必要确定这种交叉应用是否合理。这也是两者之间的联系问题。此外,还应研究确定监禁和罚款的选择标准的可能性。刑法对大多数罪行有选择性地规定了监禁和罚款。因此,有必要客观地保证罪犯将受到何种刑罚的可预见性。最后,我们来看看与日罚制的和谐问题。因为,如果在制定罚款标准的同时规定罚款上限和下限,就很难与将违法金额换算为天数的日罚款制度相协调。通过这些研究,有必要建立正义的刑罚和公平的量刑,并通过这些来确保人民的司法信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信