無限額罰金刑的裁量規則研究──以30余萬份毒品犯罪裁判文書為例的分析

學界對無限額罰金刑的研究較少，實務界長期缺乏明確的裁量規則。實證研究發現，司法實踐的裁量存在畸重畸輕以及與刑罰階梯不匹配的個案裁量偏差。應當構建科學合理的無限額罰金刑裁量規則:在理念層面，應摒棄“重主刑輕罰金刑”的傳統思維，尊重無限額罰金刑獨立的刑罰地位和功能;在裁量根據層面，應考量體現社會危害性和人身危險性的一切主客觀事實，還應考慮在罪責自負原則、刑罰人道性原則、及時充足原則基礎上的裁量個別化;在裁量影響因素層面，應將反映罪責程度的主刑宣告刑作為裁量參考基準，同時納入個人財產狀況、地區經濟差異和區域犯罪形勢等影響因素;在裁量規則層面，應構建包含刑罰階梯、行為人、地區相對人均可支配收入、相對犯罪率等因素的裁量指標體系，並建立可推廣應用的無限額罰金刑裁量規則。以毒品犯罪為例，通過分析某地區量刑規範化的試點工作，可以展示該裁量規則在個罪裁量和地方實施細則制定上的實踐應用。

There has been relatively limited academic research on unlimited fines in criminal law, and the judicial practice has long lacked clear and consistent rules for their discretion. Empirical studies reveal that judicial discretion regarding unlimited fines often suffers from inconsistencies, with some cases imposing disproportionately heavy or light fines, leading to deviations that do not align with the overall structure of criminal penalties. To construct a scientifically sound and reasonable discretionary framework for unlimited fines, the following aspects should be considered: At the conceptual level, the traditional thinking of“emphasizing principal penalties while downplaying fines”should be abandoned, and the independent legal status and function of unlimited fines should be fully respected. In terms of the basis for discretion, all subjective and objective factors reflecting the social harm and personal dangerousness of the offense should be taken into account, along with the individualized discretion principle, which is grounded in the principles of proportional culpability, penal humanism, and the need for timely and sufficient punishment. Regarding the influencing factors for discretion, this study demonstrates the rationality and practicality of using the declared principal penalty, which reflects the degree of culpability, as the primary reference for discretion, while also incorporating factors such as the offender’s personal financial status, regional economic differences, and the local crime situation. At the operational level, a discretionary framework is constructed that includes indicators such as the criminal penalty structure, characteristics of the offender, the relative disposable income per capita in the region, and the relative crime rate. This provides a replicable and applicable discretionary model for unlimited fines. Using drug offenses as an example, the study illustrates how this framework has been practically applied through a pilot program for sentencing standardization in a particular region, demonstrating its value in both offense- specific discretion and the development of local implementation guidelines.