|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2015)04-0061-05 |
| |
|
行政处罚功能定位之检讨 |
| |
陈太清，徐泽萍 |
| |
|
（南京理工大学法学系，江苏南京，210094；江苏亿城律师事务所，江苏南京，210013） |
| |
| 摘 要： 学界通常将行政处罚功能定位为惩罚，以示与其他行政行为乃至他类法律制裁的区别。然此等功能特征有其既定疆域，即以非制裁行政行为作为参照系。一旦冲破该疆域，将惩罚拔高至处罚与他类法律制裁在功能上的分野，超损害之惩罚论势必走上前台，造成惩罚与补偿的对立。惩罚的“超损害性”解读，存在报应不公、放纵违法、前提可疑、操作困难等诸多缺失。为维护法律制裁的体系统一性与功能完整性，保障行政处罚违法阻却与公益损害救济双重作用的发挥，对处罚的惩罚功能宜界定为第二性行政义务的科加，并仅限于用以区分行政处罚与非制裁行政行为。 |
| |
| 关键词： 行政处罚；法律制裁；惩罚性；补偿性 |
| |
|
| |
On the function of administrative penalty |
| |
CHEN Taiqing, XU Zeping |
| |
（Department of Law, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China;
Jiangsu Fides Law Firm, Nanjing 210013, China） |
| |
| Abstract: Thepunitive character is often regarded as the most important feature of administration penalty in theory relative to other administrative deeds, even to different sanctions. But this character can be used only to discriminate relevant behaviors. If exceeding above scope, the punishment will be interpreted to impose excess obligation. However, there are lots of defects in thus theory, such as unfair retribution, invalidity to prevent illegal activities, suspect precondition, absence of operability etc. In order to uphold the integrity of legal sanctions, the generalized comprehension imposing the second duty should be accepted by us. At the same time, we should limit the employ range just to compare administrative actions. |
| |
Key words: administrative penalty; legal sanction; punishment; compensation |
| |
|
|
