以人民法院的200份生效刑事裁判文书为样本，分析量刑事实的证明与认定。在样本中，对量刑证据的证据能力的要求较为宽松。证据证明、推定和司法认知在量刑事实的证明中都得到了运用。量刑事实与定罪事实适用了相同的证明标准，即“证据确实、充分”。罪重事实的举证责任由控方承担；罪轻事实根据其类型的不同，举证责任分别由控方和辩方承担。量刑事实认定说理存在遗漏应当认定的量刑事实、简单罗列量刑证据、说理武断和对适用的量刑事实遗漏认定环节等问题。辩护人对于量刑事实的证明起着非常重要的作用。上述样本中反映出的量刑事实证明与认定现状对于研究量刑证据理论和其他相关问题具有重要意义。%In this research, two hundred criminal judgments are used as samples to analyze the proof and determination of sentencing facts. In the samples, the admissibility rules do not apply to sentencing evidence strictly. Proof by evidence, presumption and adjudicative facts have been used in proving sentencing facts. In the samples, the same standard of proof, referred to as “the evidence should be reliable and sufifcient”, is applied in determining both the sentencing facts and convicting facts. The burden to prove aggravating facts is on the prosecutor. The burden to prove mitigating facts is allocated between the prosecutor and defendant in light of the categories of mitigating facts. Of all the samples, the reasoning for the determination of the sentencing facts presents the following problems: omitting sentencing facts, simply listing the sentencing evidence, reasoning arbitrarily and the omission of the ifnding of certain sentencing facts. In addition, as demonstrated by the samples, attorneys play a very important role in proving sentencing facts. The current practice of the proof and determination of the sentencing facts that has been presented in the above samples is vital for researching the theory of sentencing evidence and other related issues.
展开▼
