第一节 刑罚裁量制度 Penal Discretion System
刑罚裁量简称量刑，指人民法院根据行为人所犯罪行及刑事责任的轻重，在定罪并找准法定刑的基础上，依法决定对犯罪分子是否判处处罚，判处何种刑罚，刑度或者所判刑罚是否立即执行的刑事审判活动。
特征
1、量刑的主体是人民法院。量刑时人民法院根据犯罪分子罪行大小和刑事责任轻重，决定对其是否适用刑罚的一种审判活动。量刑的决定权只能归属于人民法院，其他任何机关、团体和个人都不能行使刑罚裁量权。
2、.被量刑的对象是犯罪分子。无罪的人不是量刑的对象。
3、定罪是量刑的前提。只有正确定罪，才能找准对犯罪人适用的法定刑。
4、量刑的轻重取决于刑事责任的轻重。刑事责任的大小是量刑轻重的唯一根据。在量刑过程中，判断刑事责任的大小的唯一依据只能是案件确有的各种从重和从宽处罚的量刑情节。
原则
《刑罚》第61条规定:"对于犯罪分子决定刑罚的时候，应当根据犯罪的事实，犯罪的性质、情节和对于社会的危害程度，依照本法的有关规定判处。"这就是刑罚裁量应当遵循的一般原则，它是我国审判机关长期以来量刑实践经验的科学总结，也是"以事实为依据，以法律为准绳"的法律适用原则在量刑上的具体化和法律化。
1、以犯罪事实为根据的原则
犯罪事实是量刑的客观基础或根据，没有犯罪事实，就不能成立犯罪，更谈不上量刑。贯彻量刑以犯罪事实为依据的原则，必须做到:(1)查清犯罪事实;(2)确定犯罪性质;(3)分析犯罪情节;(4)判断犯罪的社会危害程度。
2、以刑事法律为准绳的原则
(1)依照刑法分则对具体犯罪规定的量刑幅度，选择确定与犯罪分子的罪行相适应的刑种和刑期。
(2)依照刑法总则关于负担刑事责任的原则的规定，做出对犯罪分子是否从重、从轻、减轻或者免除处罚的决定。
(3)依照刑法总则关于各种刑罚方法和刑罚制度的适用对象与适用条件等规定，适用各种刑罚方法和刑罚制度。
情节
刑罚裁量情节，简称量刑情节，是指法院对犯罪分子裁量刑罚时，作为决定处罚轻重或者免除处罚根据的各种事实情况。刑罚裁量情节分为法定情节和酌定情节两类。
1、法定情节，是指刑法明文规定的，在量刑时必须予以考虑的情节。我国刑法规定，法定情节包括从重、从轻、减轻和免除处罚情节。
2、酌定情节，是指刑法虽然没有明文规定，但根据立法精神和审判经验，在量刑时需要酌情考虑的情节。
常见的酌定情节，主要有以下几种:(1)犯罪动机;(2)犯罪手段;(3)犯罪的时间、地点;(4)犯罪对象;(5)犯罪分子的一贯表现;(6)犯罪后的态度。
任务
1、决定对犯罪分子是否判处刑罚。这是量刑的首要任务。
2、决定对犯罪人判处何种刑罚和多重的刑罚。
3、决定对犯罪人判处的刑罚是否立即执行。
4、决定对犯罪人是否数罪并罚。
How the Criminal Justice System Works
How Discretion Is Exercised in the Criminal Justice System
Very few crimes are under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. The responsibility to respond to most crime rests with State and local governments. Police protection is primarily a function of cities and towns. Corrections is primarily a function of State governments. Most justice personnel are employed at the local level.
Discretion is "an authority conferred by law to act in certain conditions or situations in accordance with an official's or an official agency's own considered judgment and conscience."1 Discretion is exercised throughout the government. It is a part of decisionmaking in all government systems from mental health to education, as well as criminal justice. The limits of discretion vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Concerning crime and justice, legislative bodies have recognized that they cannot anticipate the range of circumstances surrounding each crime, anticipate local mores, and enact laws that clearly encompass all conduct that is criminal and all that is not.2 Therefore, persons charged with the day-to-day response to crime are expected to exercise their own judgment within limits set by law. Basically, they must decide -
whether to take action
where the situation fits in the scheme of law, rules, and precedent
which official response is appropriate.3
To ensure that discretion is exercised responsibly, government authority is often delegated to professionals. Professionalism requires a minimum level of training and orientation, which guide officials in making decisions. The professionalism of policing is due largely to the desire to ensure the proper exercise of police discretion.
The limits of discretion vary from State to State and locality to locality. For example, some State judges have wide discretion in the type of sentence they may impose. In recent years other States have sought to limit the judges discretion in sentencing by passing mandatory sentencing laws that require prison sentences for certain offenses.
Notes
1 Roscoe Pound, "Discretion, dispensation and mitigation: The problem of the individual special case," New York University Law Review (1960) 35:925, 926.
2 Wayne R. LaFave, Arrest: The decision to take a suspect into custody (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1964), p. 63-184.
3 Memorandum of June 21, 1977, from Mark Moore to James Vorenberg, "Some abstract notes on the issue of discretion."
http://www.1888drugcrimes.com/articles/criminal-justice-system-discretion.htm