【摘要】：隨著中國經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,各種新的社會危害行為層出不窮。違法行為的社會危害性在不同的社會發(fā)展階段其程度是不同的,這就必然會影響到處罰方式的選擇。行政處罰和刑罰是我國對違法行為進行制裁最重要的兩種方式,如何界定適用行政處罰還是刑事處罰對公民來說意義重大。當前無論在立法界還是實務(wù)界,其趨勢都是刑罰至上,加之兩者的立法銜接不協(xié)調(diào),還有行政執(zhí)法機關(guān)和司法機關(guān)之間的溝通不暢、在刑事立法時沒有對行政違法行為與行政犯罪的界限進行明確劃分等原因,導(dǎo)致大量的行政違法行為被納入到刑法的調(diào)整范疇。本文旨在通過對行政違法行為與行政犯罪界分的研究,杜絕和防范冤假錯案,切實尊重和保障人權(quán)和維護社會的公平正義。此外,在我國的現(xiàn)行法律體系中,行政違法行為與行政犯罪雖在理論上界限清晰,但是立法中存在競合和沖突,在行政執(zhí)法和司法實踐中也存在諸多問題。對于行政違法行為與行政犯罪界分問題的爭議涉及到立法和司法實踐等方方面面,實務(wù)界和理論界對此也是十分關(guān)注。本文首先對行政違法行為與行政犯罪的概念和二者的關(guān)系進行了界定,分析行政違法行為與行政犯罪的差異性和聯(lián)系性;然后總結(jié)分析了行政違法行為和行政犯罪在立法上和實踐中存在的問題,這些問題在立法上主要是在調(diào)整范圍上二者存在一定的競合和沖突,法律規(guī)定不明確等,在實踐中主要是二者銜接不通暢等;最后,對行政違法行為與行政犯罪界分提出了相關(guān)建議和具體標準,第一是在立法上完善行政違法行為與行政犯罪界分存在的缺陷:主要是在立法上明確界定行政違法行為與行政犯罪的界限、科學立法以消除二者的競合和沖突、合理的設(shè)置刑罰及嚴格限制行政違法行為犯罪化;第二是在實踐中有效應(yīng)對行政違法行為與行政犯罪的界分:主要是采取以司法認定優(yōu)先為主、行政認定優(yōu)先為例外,完善責任競合的處理機制和案件的移送制度,明確權(quán)力界限及完善監(jiān)督機制。
[Abstract]:With the development of Chinese economy, all kinds of new social harm behaviors emerge endlessly. The social harmfulness of illegal acts is different in different stages of social development, which will inevitably affect the choice of punishment. Administrative punishment and penalty are the two most important ways to sanction illegal acts in our country. How to define the application of administrative punishment or criminal punishment is of great significance to citizens. At present, whether in the legislative or the practical circles, the trend is that the penalty is paramount, coupled with the incongruity of the legislative convergence between the two, and the poor communication between the administrative law enforcement agencies and the judicial organs. In criminal legislation, there is no clear division between administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes, which leads to a large number of administrative illegal acts being brought into the scope of adjustment of criminal law. The purpose of this paper is to put an end to and prevent unjust and false cases, to respect and protect human rights and to safeguard social fairness and justice through the study of the division between administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes. In addition, in the current legal system of our country, although the limits of administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes are clear in theory, there are competing and conflicts in legislation, and there are also many problems in administrative law enforcement and judicial practice. The disputes about administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes are related to legislation and judicial practice and so on, and the practical and theoretical circles are also very concerned about this. This paper first defines the concept and the relationship between the administrative illegal act and the administrative crime, and analyzes the difference and connection between the administrative illegal act and the administrative crime. Then it summarizes and analyzes the problems existing in the legislation and practice of the administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes. These problems are mainly in the scope of adjustment and there are some conflicts and conflicts between the two, and the legal provisions are not clear and so on. In practice, the connection between the two is not smooth; Finally, the author puts forward the relevant suggestions and specific standards for the division of administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes. The first is to perfect the division between administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes in legislation: mainly to clearly define the limits of administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes in legislation, and to scientifically legislate in order to eliminate the competition and conflict between the two. Setting the penalty reasonably and strictly restricting the crime of the administrative illegal act; The second is to effectively deal with the demarcation between administrative illegal acts and administrative crimes in practice: mainly to adopt judicial recognition priority, administrative recognition priority as an exception, and perfect the handling mechanism of competing responsibilities and the transfer system of cases. Clear the limits of power and improve the supervision mechanism.
【學位授予單位】：安徽財經(jīng)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃陳辰;;行政責任與刑事責任界限厘清之改革建議[J];齊齊哈爾大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2016年10期

2 葉萍;張志勛;;多次違法行為犯罪化的立法研究[J];河南大學學報(社會科學版);2016年03期

3 敦寧;;刑事處罰與行政處罰的方法界限——兼論犯罪與行政違法的范圍劃定問題[J];刑法論叢;2015年01期

4 周光權(quán);;《刑法修正案(九)》(草案)的若干爭議問題[J];法學雜志;2015年05期

5 敦寧;;論行政拘留入刑[J];內(nèi)蒙古社會科學(漢文版);2015年01期

6 吳艷倩;;刑事責任與行政責任的競合問題研究[J];法制與社會;2014年29期

7 苗們們;;行政罰與刑事罰銜接——行政犯罪及其懲罰機制研究[J];法制與社會;2014年18期

8 官芯如;周雪梅;;當代社會犯罪化政策實證分析[J];科教文匯(上旬刊);2014年02期

9 姜遠斌;楊曙光;;刑法與行政法銜接問題探析[J];人民檢察;2014年03期

10 沈柳蘭;;行政違法與行政犯罪競合探析——以危險駕駛罪為視角[J];江蘇警官學院學報;2014年01期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前2條

1 李雪;行政違法行為與行政犯罪行為的界分與處理[D];湖北大學;2013年

2 職紅艷;行政違法行為與行政犯罪行為關(guān)系研究[D];廣西民族大學;2012年

，

本文編號：2330730