中国减刑的程序化与功利化——法官减刑观与改革观

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Yao Ding, Ivan Y. Sun, Qianwei Zhao, Eric W. Rise
{"title":"中国减刑的程序化与功利化——法官减刑观与改革观","authors":"Yao Ding,&nbsp;Ivan Y. Sun,&nbsp;Qianwei Zhao,&nbsp;Eric W. Rise","doi":"10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In China, courts review and determine commutation petitions proposed by prisons. However, the judicial process and procedures of commutation decisions tend to be rubber-stamping and symbolic, with more than 98% of petitions being approved. This study focuses on judges’ attitudes toward current trial practices and proposed commutation reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 judges responsible for handling commutation cases in a northern Chinese province. Findings suggest that the dispositions of commutation cases are highly ceremonial and routinized, supporting the street-level bureaucratic and bounded rationality arguments in judicial behavior. Besides high workload, inadequate resources, legal and procedural constraints, the judicial culture of emphasizing inter-agency collaboration over adversary processes, and the concern about the management of inmates are instrumental in shaping judges’ decision-making. Moreover, judges have reservations about the recently proposed reforms of commutation practices because of the staffing shortage, waste of trial resources, and excessive interference of judicial power into administrative power. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45526,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Criminology","volume":"18 3","pages":"273 - 295"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Routinization and Utilitarianism of Sentence Reduction in China: Judges’ Views of Commutation and Reforms\",\"authors\":\"Yao Ding,&nbsp;Ivan Y. Sun,&nbsp;Qianwei Zhao,&nbsp;Eric W. Rise\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In China, courts review and determine commutation petitions proposed by prisons. However, the judicial process and procedures of commutation decisions tend to be rubber-stamping and symbolic, with more than 98% of petitions being approved. This study focuses on judges’ attitudes toward current trial practices and proposed commutation reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 judges responsible for handling commutation cases in a northern Chinese province. Findings suggest that the dispositions of commutation cases are highly ceremonial and routinized, supporting the street-level bureaucratic and bounded rationality arguments in judicial behavior. Besides high workload, inadequate resources, legal and procedural constraints, the judicial culture of emphasizing inter-agency collaboration over adversary processes, and the concern about the management of inmates are instrumental in shaping judges’ decision-making. Moreover, judges have reservations about the recently proposed reforms of commutation practices because of the staffing shortage, waste of trial resources, and excessive interference of judicial power into administrative power. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45526,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Criminology\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"273 - 295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在中国,法院审查并决定监狱提出的减刑请求。然而,减刑决定的司法程序和程序往往是橡皮图章和象征性的,超过98%的请愿得到批准。本研究主要关注法官对当前审判实践的态度和减刑改革建议。我们对中国北方某省负责处理减刑案件的20名法官进行了半结构化访谈。研究结果表明,减刑案件的处理是高度仪式性和程序化的,这支持了司法行为中街头官僚主义和有限理性的论点。除了工作量大、资源不足、法律和程序上的限制、强调机构间合作而非敌对程序的司法文化,以及对囚犯管理的关注,都有助于形成法官的决策。此外,法官对最近提出的减刑做法改革持保留态度,原因是人员短缺、审判资源浪费、司法权过度干涉行政权力。讨论了对未来研究和政策的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Routinization and Utilitarianism of Sentence Reduction in China: Judges’ Views of Commutation and Reforms

In China, courts review and determine commutation petitions proposed by prisons. However, the judicial process and procedures of commutation decisions tend to be rubber-stamping and symbolic, with more than 98% of petitions being approved. This study focuses on judges’ attitudes toward current trial practices and proposed commutation reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 judges responsible for handling commutation cases in a northern Chinese province. Findings suggest that the dispositions of commutation cases are highly ceremonial and routinized, supporting the street-level bureaucratic and bounded rationality arguments in judicial behavior. Besides high workload, inadequate resources, legal and procedural constraints, the judicial culture of emphasizing inter-agency collaboration over adversary processes, and the concern about the management of inmates are instrumental in shaping judges’ decision-making. Moreover, judges have reservations about the recently proposed reforms of commutation practices because of the staffing shortage, waste of trial resources, and excessive interference of judicial power into administrative power. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Criminology
Asian Journal of Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
10.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Electronic submission now possible! Please see the Instructions for Authors. For general information about this new journal please contact the publisher at [welmoed.spahr@springer.com] The Asian Journal of Criminology aims to advance the study of criminology and criminal justice in Asia, to promote evidence-based public policy in crime prevention, and to promote comparative studies about crime and criminal justice. The Journal provides a platform for criminologists, policymakers, and practitioners and welcomes manuscripts relating to crime, crime prevention, criminal law, medico-legal topics and the administration of criminal justice in Asian countries. The Journal especially encourages theoretical and methodological papers with an emphasis on evidence-based, empirical research addressing crime in Asian contexts. It seeks to publish research arising from a broad variety of methodological traditions, including quantitative, qualitative, historical, and comparative methods. The Journal fosters a multi-disciplinary focus and welcomes manuscripts from a variety of disciplines, including criminology, criminal justice, law, sociology, psychology, forensic science, social work, urban studies, history, and geography.
×
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