Milestones and Current Dilemmas: Evaluation of Sentencing Standardization for Illegal Possession of Drugs in China

Author:

Wu Jia1ORCID,Xia Yang1,Song Apei2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Law, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

2. School of Law, Society, and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Justice, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

Abstract

It has been more than ten years since the nationwide sentencing standardization reform was implemented in China to solve the widespread problem of uneven sentencing in criminal justice. A statistical analysis of 1595 written judgments of illegal possession of drugs showed that the reform of sentencing for the standardization amount-based crimes has achieved remarkable results, and judges’ discretion has been highly normative and consistent. Under the same criminal circumstances, the degree of consistency between the amount involved in the crime and imprisonment has significantly increased, which is more in line with the standards of formal justice. However, the effect of the sentencing standardization reform declined as the amount involved in the crime increased. This exposes the shortcomings of the standardized sentencing model when considering multiple crimes; these include confusion between the amount and circumstances of a crime, the imbalance between crime and punishment, and the application of discretionary circumstances in sentencing depending on the amount involved in the crime. Therefore, it is necessary to attach more importance to the evaluation of the legitimacy of the sentencing range established by criminal law in subsequent sentencing reforms and to further refine and perfect the standardized sentencing mode, with a shift from formal justice to justice in form and substance.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Law

Reference45 articles.

1. Lawlessness in the Federal Sentencing Process: A Test for Uniformity and Consistency in Sentence Outcomes;Anderson;Justice Quarterly,2010

2. The Constitutional Significance of Equal Judgment in the Same Case and Its Empirical Study;Bai;Chinese Law,2003

3. Social Context and Racial Disparities in Punishment Decisions;Britt;Justice Quarterly,2000

4. Carstairs, Catherine (2006). Jailed for Possession: Illegal Drug Use, Regulation, and Power in Canada, 1920–1961, University of Toronto Press.

5. An Empirical Study of Sentencing Evidence and Rules—A Perspective on the Work of Sentencing Recommendations in a District Basic Prosecutor’s Office;Chen;Legal Application,2016

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3