Legality and Sentencing Discretion: Consistent Individualisation through the Principles of Proportionality, Guilt, and Equality   全文下載

適法性和量刑裁量：透過比例原則、罪責和平等原則實現一致的個人化

量刑之司法裁量權是使判決與事件的個別特徵相符合並實現公正和適當懲罰的根本。然而，量刑裁量權也可能牴觸與可預見及一致量刑息息相關的法律確定性利益。由此便產生了「究竟適法性原則對量刑有何重要意義」此問題。儘管適法性原則要求，例如，界定明確且可對人民公開的制裁制度，但其一般不要求達到人民對任何具體的刑事犯罪的類型和程度皆可具體預期的制裁預見性。因此，適法性原則在保持量刑個案化的同時，所提供之具體的一致性指導方針十分有限。在此方面，更有幫助的是嚴格意義上的比例原則、罪責程度相稱的懲罰，以及制裁平等原則。法院不應追求所判刑罰的一致平等，而應追求在不同的案件中以更一致、更不主觀恣意的方式來實現個別化，換言之，法院應追求者乃「個案化的一致性」，而上述四個原則在追求「個案化的一致性」過程中都扮演重要的角色。

Judicial discretion in sentencing is fundamental to match the sentence to the individual features of a case and to achieve a just and appropriate punishment. Nevertheless, discretion in sentencing may also be at odds with the interest of legal certainty in connection with foreseeable and consistent sentencing. This raises the question how the legality principle is of importance to sentencing. Although it demands, for example, that the sanction system is defined clearly and in an accessible way, it generally does not require foreseeability of the sanction which one can expect specifically as regards type and level for any concrete criminal offence. Consequently, the legality principle offers little concrete guidance for consistency while maintaining individualization in sentencing. More helpful in this regard could be the principles of proportionality strictu senso, punishment in proportion to the degree of guilt and equality with sanctioning. It will be asserted that courts should not aim for consistent equality of sentences imposed, but rather for a more consistent and less subjective and arbitrary way of achieving individualization in varying cases, i.e.: consistency in individualization. All the four principles mentioned above have a role to play in that.