区隔、因应与弥合:论刑罚与行政处罚的界域衔接  

Distinction,response and bridging:the distinction between criminal and administrative punishment

作　　者：付玉明[1] 焦建峰 FU Yu-ming;JIAO Jian-feng

机构地区：[1]西北政法大学刑事法学院,陕西西安710063

出　　处：《东南大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第1期58-67,147,共11页Journal of Southeast University(Philosophy and Social Science)

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目“自动驾驶事故风险的刑事治理研究”;陕西省教育厅专项科研计划项目“社会转型期下的公共安全与刑法控制”;陕西省刑事法学青年创新团队建设项目阶段性成果。

摘　　要：在刑事立法活性化背景下,行刑衔接问题很突出。行政违法与刑事不法的界分是解决行刑衔接问题的关键,质量区分的视角无法满足实践要求,仅具有理论层面的作用。长远来看,轻罪体系的建构通过行政违法行为犯罪化的路径将行政违法转化为刑事不法可以消除二者的冲突,但由于轻罪体系建构的立法成本高昂、立法周期长、轻罪标准不明确等诸多现实困境,其无法成为当下解决行刑衔接问题的治病良药。扩展以刑制罪理论的适用范围,从需罚性出发弥合刑罚与行政处罚适用的冲突是当下实现行刑衔接的权宜之策。Withthe activation of criminal legislation,there arises a need to distinguish execution from punishment.Though borrowing the distinction between administrative violation and criminal illegality sounds viable,it is infeasible in practice.A misdemeanor system can eliminate the conflict between the two by criminalizing administrative offenses,but the high legislative cost,long legislative process,and ambiguous definition of misdemeanors are obstacles in the path.This paper offers a solution:widening the application of crime theoryby punishment and bridging the gap between punishment and administrative punishment from the need for punishment.

关 键 词：行刑衔接 但书 轻罪立法 以刑制罪 

分 类 号：D922.11[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学] D924.3[政治法律—法学]