United States Sentencing Guidelines - A Manual for Criminal Trials by American Judges

Author: Lü Zhongmei
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-07-01
Features: In criminal trials, sentencing is one of the most fundamental tasks of judges. Based on the facts established by case evidence, judges determine whether a criminal defendant is guilty and impose appropriate penalties, which is a crucial aspect of criminal judges' case handling. A senior judge once told me that the best measure of a criminal judge's ability is not conviction but sentencing level. Whether a judge's basic skills are solid can also be judged by their performance in sentencing. This view seems quite different from our usual understanding of criminal trial work. Why would judges who have long been engaged in criminal trials arrive at a conclusion different from our perception? After more than five years of observation and reflection, and participating in discussions on thousands of criminal cases, I gradually came to understand the reasoning: one of the main reasons sentencing is considered the epitome of a criminal judge's quality and ability is that it is closely related to judicial discretion. China has a tradition of civil law, and for a long time, judges have been required to strictly adhere to the principle of "judging based on facts and law as the criterion," with judicial discretion not receiving due attention or research, failing to provide rational support for judicial practice. Meanwhile, the uncertainty of penalties in legislation has always existed, and judges must exercise discretion to complete the handling of individual cases. This has created a gap: on one hand, judges must use discretion when sentencing, and on the other hand, there is a lack of theoretical and methodological guidance for judges to exercise this discretion. These two aspects have led to sentencing discretion being something judges must "teach themselves," making sentencing, compared to conviction which has relatively mature theoretical guidance, a better reflection of a criminal judge's competence in grasping the spirit of criminal law and achieving its objectives. Because judicial discretion is not merely the power to make discretionary decisions but also, more importantly, the power to make decisions that must be just, fair, correct, and reasonable under specific circumstances. The exercise of judicial discretion directly reflects a judge's abilities and levels of legal philosophy, legal literacy, and judicial skills, making sentencing a concrete manifestation of a criminal judge's judicial ability. From the perspective of criminal justice, judicial discretion includes both substantive criminal law discretion and procedural criminal law discretion. Sentencing discretion is a substantive law discretion, which refers to the judge's power to decide whether to impose penalties on a convicted criminal defendant and what kind of penalties to impose within the scope of the law. In judicial practice, sentencing discretion mainly falls into two categories: one is based on the basis of discretion formation, including statutory discretion and interpretive discretion. Statutory discretion refers to the power to exercise discretion within the legally stipulated sentencing norms or ranges. Interpretive discretion refers to the sentencing norms or ranges granted to judges by judicial interpretations, allowing them to exercise discretion. The other category is based on the nature of the criminal law norms that grant discretion, including general discretion and special discretion. General discretion is granted by the general principles of criminal law, which is the discretion given to judges by criminal law based on certain characteristics of certain crime types or criminals. Special discretion is stipulated in the specific provisions of criminal law, which is the discretion given to judges by criminal law based on specific circumstances or specific criminal subjects. Additionally, there are some issues worth further study in practice regarding sentencing discretion, such as acquittal with punishment and the determination of criminal charges. The decision of whether to impose penalties on a criminal defendant is the core issue of sentencing. In the criminal code, the provision of acquittal with punishment is not a rigid clause, so there is still a question of judicial discretion in its application. In this sense, "acquittal with punishment" is essentially a special form of sentencing as well. In the process of examining sentencing, we also found that the determination of criminal charges is closely linked to sentencing. Different charges necessarily result in different statutory penalties. Therefore, from a certain perspective, the judgment on different charges is also a judgment on sentencing. Of course, the discretion here is not aimed at distinguishing between guilt and innocence but, based on the confirmation of a crime, at distinguishing between this crime and that crime. In criminal trials, sentencing is one of the most fundamental tasks of judges. Based on the facts established by case evidence, judges determine whether a criminal defendant is guilty and impose appropriate penalties, which is a crucial aspect of criminal judges' case handling. This book is one of the training series for judges' judicial skills. It is the sentencing policy formulated by the U.S. Sentencing Commission for the U.S. federal court system, a summary of criminal trial experience in the United States, aimed at regulating the "freedom" of sentencing discretion through criminal policy. Translating and including it as part of this series can provide Chinese judges with models and references for theoretical research and judicial practice, playing an active role in the establishment and improvement of China's sentencing discretion system. The Sentencing Guide was provided by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a congressional agency established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, after review by Congress and applied in the U.S. federal court system. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 clearly stipulates that the gradual improvement of the guidelines will further strengthen the purpose of punishing crimes, deterring crime, depriving criminals of their ability to commit crimes, punishing crimes justly, and helping criminals reintegrate into society. The Act grants the U.S. Sentencing Commission broad powers to review and reasonably handle federal sentencing procedures. The Sentencing Commission is an independent body in the U.S. judicial system, composed of 7 voting members and 2 non-voting non-official members. Its main tasks are to establish sentencing policies and guide sentencing practices for the U.S. federal criminal justice system, ensuring justice is upheld by formulating specific rules for the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment.