各国量刑制度的差异及其造成的差异

IF 3.6 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
M. Tonry
{"title":"各国量刑制度的差异及其造成的差异","authors":"M. Tonry","doi":"10.1086/688454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Structural differences in sentencing systems and normative differences in the nature and influence of prevailing conceptions of justice make huge differences in patterns and practices in Western countries. In most, the views of elected politicians, the media, and the general public are believed to be irrelevant to sentencing decisions; prosecutors are politically insulated career civil servants and do not engage in plea negotiations concerning sentencing or that constrain judges’ choices; judicial fact finding is required in every case involving a conviction; imprisonment is believed to be harmful and to be used only as a last resort; community punishments are widely used in lieu of imprisonment; laws mandating specific punishments for specific crimes do not exist; and proportionality is believed by officials and scholars to be the fundamental requirement of punitive justice. The United States, usually the only one, is the outlier on each of the characteristics.","PeriodicalId":51456,"journal":{"name":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","volume":"45 1","pages":"1 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/688454","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in National Sentencing Systems and the Differences They Make\",\"authors\":\"M. Tonry\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/688454\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Structural differences in sentencing systems and normative differences in the nature and influence of prevailing conceptions of justice make huge differences in patterns and practices in Western countries. In most, the views of elected politicians, the media, and the general public are believed to be irrelevant to sentencing decisions; prosecutors are politically insulated career civil servants and do not engage in plea negotiations concerning sentencing or that constrain judges’ choices; judicial fact finding is required in every case involving a conviction; imprisonment is believed to be harmful and to be used only as a last resort; community punishments are widely used in lieu of imprisonment; laws mandating specific punishments for specific crimes do not exist; and proportionality is believed by officials and scholars to be the fundamental requirement of punitive justice. The United States, usually the only one, is the outlier on each of the characteristics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/688454\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/688454\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crime and Justice-A Review of Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/688454","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

量刑制度的结构性差异和主流司法观念的性质和影响的规范性差异,使得西方国家在量刑模式和实践上存在巨大差异。在大多数情况下,当选的政治家、媒体和公众的观点被认为与量刑决定无关;检察官是与政治隔绝的职业公务员,不参与有关量刑或限制法官选择的辩诉谈判;每一个涉及定罪的案件都需要司法事实查明;监禁被认为是有害的,只能作为最后手段使用;社区惩罚被广泛用于代替监禁;不存在规定具体罪行具体处罚的法律;而比例性被官员和学者认为是刑罚正义的基本要求。美国,通常是唯一的一个,在每一个特征上都是异常值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in National Sentencing Systems and the Differences They Make
Structural differences in sentencing systems and normative differences in the nature and influence of prevailing conceptions of justice make huge differences in patterns and practices in Western countries. In most, the views of elected politicians, the media, and the general public are believed to be irrelevant to sentencing decisions; prosecutors are politically insulated career civil servants and do not engage in plea negotiations concerning sentencing or that constrain judges’ choices; judicial fact finding is required in every case involving a conviction; imprisonment is believed to be harmful and to be used only as a last resort; community punishments are widely used in lieu of imprisonment; laws mandating specific punishments for specific crimes do not exist; and proportionality is believed by officials and scholars to be the fundamental requirement of punitive justice. The United States, usually the only one, is the outlier on each of the characteristics.
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
Crime and Justice-A Review of Research
Crime and Justice-A Review of Research CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Crime and Justice: A Review of Research is a refereed series of volumes of commissioned essays on crime-related research subjects published by the University of Chicago Press. Since 1979 the Crime and Justice series has presented a review of the latest international research, providing expertise to enhance the work of sociologists, psychologists, criminal lawyers, justice scholars, and political scientists. The series explores a full range of issues concerning crime, its causes, and its cure.
×
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