casino lugano dress code:casino,lugano,dress,code,Cao,Z:Cao Zinuo Xun turned back, Gao Zhuang's Zhuangzi disappeared First, increase the types of public security management penalties The 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' stipulates only four types of public security management pena
Cao Zinuo Xun turned back, Gao Zhuang's Zhuangzi disappearedFirst, increase the types of public security management penalties The 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' stipulates only four types of public security management penalties, namely: warnings, fines, administrative detention, and revocation by public security organs. license. At the same time, the writing network also stipulates that foreigners who violate the security management may be subject to penalties for expiration or deportation.
As far as the practical needs of public security management are concerned, there are fewer types of punishment.
The author envisages whether it is possible to introduce and improve the new punishment method of “social service order” and to confiscate such administrative sanctions as one of the types of public security punishment. (1) Introducing and improving the 'Social Service Order'.
'Social Service Order' is a means of community correction.
The first sentence in the United Kingdom that created the 'community service' in the Criminal Court Power Act of 1973, that is, the judge can order the defendant to perform unpaid 21 community work to compensate for the damage caused to the society and individuals by his crimes. . The Social Service Orders Ordinance of Hong Kong, China was formally passed in 1984 and extended to the District Court, the Court of Appeal of the High Court and the Court of First Instance of the High Court in 1998.
The 'social service order' in Hong Kong has the dual role of compensatory and assisting offenders to rehabilitate .
Under this service order, offenders are required to agree to unpaid social service work during their free time to compensate for their damage to society and to replace imprisonment.
The purpose of implementing this program is mainly threefold: one is self-reliance, through unpaid public welfare work, to promote law-abiding and law-abiding; the second is constructive treatment, which allows offenders to continue to live in the community and avoid imprisonment. The negative impact may occur; the third is compensation, giving criminals a chance to contribute to society.
Although there is no explicit provision for 'social service order' in China, some cities have tried to implement the 'social service order' at the district level since 2007, mainly for criminal cases involving minors, such as Shanghai Changning District People's Court, Chang'an District Procuratorate of Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province .
After issuing a “social service order” to a criminal suspect, it will be allowed to work free of charge at a specified time and place.
The 'social service order' system embodies a modern concept of punishment, that is, the concept of socialization of punishment, which is a substitute for punishment in nature, emphasizing that the execution of punishment is closely related to society.
For some minors and other specific groups of people who do not have serious consequences or influences, such as violations of laws and regulations, emphasis on education rather than punishment, showing its certain superiority, it is to achieve 'education for juvenile offenders' A beneficial system that combines policies with probation .
The author suggests that the 'social service order' should be innovated and transplanted into public security punishment as a perfection of the types of public security punishment.
For certain violations of public security management, such as spreading rumors, stealing, and intentionally damaging public and private property, the public security organ may issue a 'social service order' to the actor to replace a single administrative detention.
In addition, in the course of implementation, administrative detention personnel who fail to perform administrative detention in accordance with the law shall be handed over to the social correctional institution and the punishment decision letter shall be served.
Let the violators of public security management be rehabilitated in the process of social service, and can better serve the purpose of punishment and education without restricting personal freedom.
And this method is easier for the person to be punished to accept, and the result will be better than just a separate administrative detention. It is a completely viable method of public security punishment.
Of course, how to implement a 'social service order' requires continuous accumulation of experience from actual operations and gradual improvement.
(2) Set such administrative sanctions as confiscation as one of the types of public security punishment.
Article 110 of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment stipulates that “the person who has been given the punishment for administrative detention shall pay the deposit, suspend the administrative detention, and evade the execution of the administrative detention punishment. The deposit shall be confiscated and turned over to the state treasury. The detention decision is still in progress.
' And the administrative action for the confiscation of the deposit in this article is not an administrative penalty. From the type of punishment stipulated in Article 10, the administrative action is not set as an administrative punishment in the article, which can be considered as Confiscation is not an administrative penalty.
But the author believes that the administrative act of forfeiting the deposit as stipulated in Article 110 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law is an administrative punishment.
There are two reasons: First, the confiscation is an administrative sanction that the public security organ will inherit the prohibited items held by the offender or the proceeds of the illegal act or the property related to the illegal act. Among the types of administrative penalties stipulated in Article 8 of the Administrative Punishment Law, it is clarified that such administrative sanctions are confiscated as one of the types of administrative penalties.
Second, improve the double penalty system In part of the punishment, the system of administrative detention and fines adopted at the same time (double penalty system), there are indeed difficulties in implementation.
According to Article 49 of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment, theft, fraud, looting, extortion or deliberate destruction of the company’s property, and detention for more than five days, can be imposed a fine of more than 500 yuan; if the circumstances are heavier, Detained for more than 10 days and less than fifteen days, you can impose a fine of 1,000 yuan.
According to this provision, such cases must be punishable by the perpetrator.
The grassroots public security organs believe that this article of law has problems to a certain extent.
If there are some sabotages caused by people's livelihood problems and deliberately destroying the company's property, the public security organs cannot generalize to impose detention punishment.
Because some kind of inappropriate behavior of the government has caused the masses to deliberately destroy the public and private property. From the legal level, the public security organs can completely detain the suspects, but it is likely to be detained after detention. Lead to more discord in society.
As in the current 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law', Article 43 of the Law, and the combined punishment system stipulated in Article 40, etc., the grassroots implementation is more difficult, and the injury case can properly compensate the infringer and pay for the medicine. The fee is not easy.
In the rural areas, the person being punished is willing to be detained in a state of administrative detention and is not willing to impose a fine; in the city, he is willing to be fined and not willing to be administratively detained.
In short, the purpose of law enforcement is to achieve social harmony. If a series of disharmonious factors occurs after the end of a law enforcement act, it shows that this law enforcement act itself has problems.
To this end, it is recommended to use the criminal law related double penalty system in the revision, moderately applicable, can not simply use 'and' to generalize, use more 'can' discretion, selective text.
Fourth, the lack of perfect procedures The incompleteness of the public security management punishment procedure is a serious problem. In summary, there are mainly the following aspects: (1) The certification standard is flawed.
Article 30 of the Administrative Punishment Law stipulates that “administration of penalties must be ascertained” for administrative punishment. It can be considered that the administrative punishment law adopts the same objective and true standards as the criminal procedure certificate, and the “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” is not In particular, this standard should be adopted in principle.
However, the administrative punishment of public security is different from the criminal punishment. The administrative nature determines that it must meet the requirements of the principle of administrative efficiency. The degree of public security management punishment is far less than that of criminal punishment. Therefore, the standard of proof should be higher than the standard of proof in criminal proceedings. low.
Public security management penalties often involve fleeting illegal acts, and it is difficult to collect evidence that is unambiguous and mutually agreed by both parties.
Adding evidence such as traces, forensic and telecommunications records involves professional and technical issues, and the administrative agencies cannot collect accurate and complete evidence, just like criminal investigations and prosecutions, based on existing conditions. Unlike the proof in the lawsuit, in some cases, the public security personnel directly contact the illegal facts and have a clear understanding of the illegal facts. If the violation of public security management found in the on-the-spot punishment procedure is applied, whether the infringed person is injured or bleeding. There are also cases where the case cannot be contacted, and the facts of the case can only be determined through investigation and evidence collection. In both cases, the procedure for applying evidence by law enforcement officials is different: the former is a known fact, and the facts of the case are proved to the administrative counterpart, the reconsideration agency, and the court by collecting evidence; the latter is an unknown fact, and evidence is collected through investigation. The process to recognize the facts. For the case where the facts of the case have been perceived, the use of the legal true standard is obviously contrary to the punishment of the justice requirement, and the objective and true standard should be adopted, based on facts. For cases where the facts are not perceived, the legal truth standard can be considered, and the facts proved by the evidence are used as the basis for punishment . (2) The provisions on the hearing procedure are relatively vague. The Security Administration Punishment Act only covers two provisions of the hearing procedure: Articles 3 and 98. Article 3 stipulates: 'The procedures for public security management punishment shall be governed by the provisions of this Law; if there is no provision in this Law, the relevant provisions of the Administrative Punishment Law shall apply'; Article 98 shall apply to the scope of application of the hearing procedure: 'To the public security organs Before the revocation of the permit and the fine of more than 2,000 yuan, if the party requests a hearing, the public security organ shall hold a hearing. However, due to the comparative principle of the provisions of the Administrative Punishment Law on hearing procedures, many problems have been discovered during the implementation process. The Law on Public Security Administration Punishment is not clear about the lessons that should have been learned. Therefore, there are at least three problems: First, the administrative detention is excluded from the scope of the hearing. For citizens, the impact of personal liberty penalties is far greater than property penalties. The scope of the Hearing Procedures in the Administrative Punishment Law is limited to the order to suspend production and business suspension, to revoke the permit, and to impose a large amount of fines. The administrative penalty for restricting personal freedom is not included in the scope of the hearing procedure. The 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' continues this shortcoming. The 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' has been postponed for ten years than the 'Administrative Punishment Law'. The legislation should have great progress or breakthrough. Unfortunately, the scope of application of the hearing procedure has not been expanded or broken. Insufficient protection of human rights directly leads to the lack of control. Of course, to include administrative detention in the scope of the hearing, we must fully consider the negative impacts brought about by it, and we must set strict preconditions to prevent it from using the hearing procedure to escape. If you apply for a hearing, you must first pay a certain margin or submit a qualified guarantor. Secondly, the punishment for confiscation of illegal income and confiscation of illegal property was not included in the scope of the hearing procedure, and the lack of protection of property rights that had a greater impact on citizens led to the blind spot of control. Since the 'Administrative Punishment Law' does not include the illegal income and the confiscation of illegal property into the scope of the hearing procedure, the 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' has followed the relevant provisions of the Administrative Punishment Law and has not been included in the scope of the hearing procedure. . In fact, the seriousness and consequences of the above two kinds of punishments are far greater than the larger amount of fines or the punishment for revoking licenses. Regardless of the reasons for the legislator to exclude it from the scope of the hearing procedure, it is contrary to the legislative purpose and original intention of the law. Thirdly, the law also stipulates that “the parties may participate in the hearing in person, or entrust one or two agents”, but does not stipulate whether their attorneys and other agents can consult or copy the investigator’s allegations. If the other agents of the attorneys do not have the right to access the case file, they will not be able to exercise the right of defense fully and effectively, thus affecting the legitimacy and appropriateness of the administrative punishment, and inevitably make the hearing system flow in form. These are subject to further revision and improvement in the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment. (3) The infringed person and the infringer have unequal rights. Article 39 of the original Regulations on Public Security Administration Punishment stipulates that if the person being punished or the person being infringed is dissatisfied with the punishment for public security management, he may apply for administrative reconsideration according to law. Article 102 of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment stipulates that the person being punished may not apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit according to law. It can be seen from the two legal provisions that the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment cancels the right of administrative reconsideration of the infringed person when giving the person being punished reconsideration and freedom of choice in litigation. That is to say, according to the 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law', the infringed person has no right to apply for administrative reconsideration. This is the legislator (including the drafters) who has opened an 'international joke' to the people of the country. Later, under the strong request of the grassroots law enforcement officials and relevant legal experts, the Ministry of Public Security announced in the notice of the 'Interpretation of the Public Security Organs on the Implementation of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishment (II)' in 2007. The infringed person may apply for administrative reconsideration according to law. But we must understand that, first of all, this is an administrative interpretation rather than a legal provision and a judicial interpretation. Its effectiveness is relatively low, and it is suspected of violating the relevant provisions of the Legislative Law. Secondly, the 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' gives the punctured person the right to reconsideration and freedom of litigation. The Ministry of Public Security has only given the right to apply for administrative reconsideration according to law in the above notice, artificially setting preconditions and being infringed. A person can apply for a lawsuit only if he is dissatisfied with the administrative review decision. Obviously, the rights of the infringed person and the infringer are different. (4) Incorporating the deposit, prepaid medical expenses and damages and the guarantor procedure into the assault of others and intentional injury cases for the initial investigation. In daily work, especially in the daily work of police stations, beatings and intentional injuries are the most common cases. Such cases are most likely to lead to petitions and complaints if they are not handled promptly or improperly. The author has combed that there are mainly the following problems in cases of infringement of personal rights such as beating others and intentional injury cases: 1. Dealing with cases of unidentified injuries. Under normal circumstances, the public security organs of the public security police after receiving the alarm is the first to investigate and interrogate the parties to determine the nature of the case, the extent of the injury and the basis for the punishment. In the specific operation, the police station first requires the victim to provide the disease diagnosis certificate in time. If the disease diagnosis certificate can prove to be a minor injury, the police station can make a penalty within the statutory time limit or conduct mediation and mediation according to the subjective will of both parties. However, it is not possible for the hospital to issue a diagnostic certificate in time, or the diagnostic certificate cannot clearly see the specific extent of the victim's injury. For example, if it is a minor injury or a minor injury, it is impossible to determine it. It requires the forensic opinion. In this case, the public security organ must first accept the case as a public security case, and then ask the victim to go to the medical examination. Then, the handling of the suspect at this time is a problem. Is the public security organ administrative detention or criminal detention? Administrative detention is a specific administrative punishment. After administrative detention, it is equivalent to a specific administrative punishment. If the victim’s injury constitutes a minor injury, we Can be arrested, or the victim can be informed of the private prosecution channel. However, if the administrative detention is over, the victim’s forensic identification has not yet been made. The suspect is a foreigner or has already gone to work in a foreign country. In this case, the victim’s private prosecution, in the case of private prosecution, the court’s service document cannot be When the suspect was served, the court could not handle the case, and finally the court returned the case to the public security organ, which undoubtedly caused trouble to the public security organ. In recent years, such problems have occurred in many cases handled by police stations. However, criminal detention is a criminal measure. It is not a physical punishment. After we have criminally detained the suspect, if the victim’s injury is identified as a minor injury by forensic examination, then it is not the criminal detention error of the public security organ. The public security organs must undoubtedly compensate the suspects in accordance with the specific provisions of the State Compensation Law. Therefore, in response to this problem, the author believes that the 'Public Security Administration Punishment Law' has a problem of not being operationally strong. 2. The issue of medical expenses and damages for victims of assaults against others, intentional injury, etc. Under normal circumstances, the public security organ's duty is to find out the nature of the case, the facts of the case, and punish the illegal act according to the specific circumstances of the case. However, in the specific work, it involves the medical expenses and damages of the victim after the injury. This is a headache for the police station. The law does not stipulate that the police handling the case must ask for medical expenses from the other party. However, in daily work, the victims do not understand at all. They think that the police should solve the medical expenses and compensation problems for them. If the suspect has good economic conditions and pays in time, then it is easy to handle. However, if the suspect’s economic conditions are not good, or if he is unwilling to pay the relevant expenses, the public security organ will not be able to impose penalties on the suspect within the statutory time limit (for example, if the diagnosis cannot be provided in time and the forensic identification cannot be made in time), then it must be The work of the public security organs has brought trouble. In view of the above two problems, and the police force of the grassroots public security organs is limited, when the police station, especially the urban police station, accepts beatings and intentional injury cases, it generally takes the infringer to pay the deposit or medical advance payment or let the infringer find the guarantee. If the two parties fail to reach an agreement on the medical expenses and damages, the public security organ will transfer the remaining margin or medical advance payment to the court after paying the infringer a reasonable medical fee. This method is obviously illegal, but it has been affirmed by the grassroots party committee, the people's congress, the government, the CPPCC, and the masses of the police and the masses. The victims' petitions and complaints have been significantly reduced. At the same time, the leaders of public security organs at all levels have also acquiesced in this approach. Of course, some legal experts have also publicly accused public security organs of serious violations of the law. If, after the end of a so-called 'illegal' law enforcement act, the situation of stability and harmony is promoted and praised by the grassroots law enforcers and the masses, it shows that this 'illegal' behavior itself is quite reasonable. Instead of letting the 'illegal' behavior get popular, it is better to legalize it. (5) Standardizing the implementation issues. Mencius said: 'The law is not enough to do it by itself.' It means that the law itself cannot be implemented out of thin air, but it must be carried out by people. Therefore, even the best law can be implemented in the end is the real key, the law can only reflect its value in the implementation, to achieve the purpose of regulating social relations. There are many reasons why the law can be enforced, but the operability of the law itself cannot be ignored. First, regarding the actual implementation of administrative detention. Since the implementation of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment, local public security organs have imposed a large number of administrative detention penalties, but the implementation is not optimistic. Almost some administrative detention cases have not been actually implemented, and some proportions are still relatively high. The main reason for this is that the person being punished maliciously evades punishment. Since there is a process in the case of public security cases from investigation and evidence to final ruling, some of the punitive people in the middle are often 36, which is the best policy, and the object of execution cannot be found after the ruling. On the other hand, case-handling cases require that the maximum period of handling a case should not exceed 60 days, so unexecuted cases have to be temporarily closed. It is also a problem for the penalized person who fled to the field to take measures to accept the punishment. Criminal suspects can be detained and arrested across the ground. There are no express provisions on how to conduct administrative detention in a public security case. In addition, from the perspective of actual law enforcement costs and difficulty, the fleeing personnel seem to be extra-standard tourists. Starting from the long-term reality, it is recommended to solve such problems from the following perspectives: First, the Ministry of Public Security has established a network system for national uniform escape punishment personnel (including those who fled immediately after committing crimes). Second, the law clearly stipulates the public security organs to investigate and enforce administrative detention in different places. Which public security organ is arrested, which public security organs conduct relevant investigations on the spot (mainly for those who flee immediately after committing the crime) or deliver them and execute them. Third, it is legally stipulated that the public security organs can revoke the driver's license, vehicle driving license, various licenses and business licenses of the fugitives, freeze deposits and loans, and enjoy various welfare benefits within the scope of the national local policy. It is forbidden to purchase train tickets. Air tickets, tickets, and various certificates will be suspended. Within five years, bank credit cards, cancellation of any subsistence allowances, and purchase of affordable housing will be banned, and administrative detention must still be implemented. The third is to implement the 'Social Service Order.' Second, regarding the implementation of fines. To a certain extent, the implementation of fines is more difficult, and the direct performance is that the person being punished refuses to pay a fine. Although the Administrative Punishment Law stipulates that there are three ways to complete the execution of the refusal to pay, that is, “three days of fines for the amount of fines plus a fine,” “the auction of the seized property will be fined,” Apply to the people's court for enforcement.' This first method is obviously pale and powerless, and the fines themselves are difficult to pay. The second method is also difficult to communicate, and it is not that there is a seizure in every case. That is, how to auction for the auction? If the auction is not fine enough, how can I do it? The author may be ignorant and not yet listening. I have mentioned a case in which a public security organ applied for court execution. This is psychologically difficult to accept. Second, the program is complex and inefficient. Third, the court will certainly be able to implement or implement it. The court is not high because of the small number of police officers. There are also contradictions between administrative detention and fines. Some of the punishments are often detained and punished. The actual result is that they are detained and punished. In the past, the Regulations on Public Security Administration Punishment stipulated that those who refused to pay fines could be detained. Some experts and scholars believe that this is a performance in which disguised punishment will be upgraded. It is also considered that this is also unbalanced for other administrative penalty fines. However, the situation at the time was that the implementation of the fines for public security was very good, and the proportion of people who were actually detained without paying fines was also small. Jurisprudential analysis, if a ruling can not be well executed, how the dignity of the law adjusts the order of the victim's psychology to soothe long-term considerations, one can improve the original 'Public Security Administration Punishment Regulations' Incorporate new laws with restrictions.
If it can be stipulated that if the fine is refused within three months without the permission of the public security organ, it may be detained for less than 15 days, and the fine shall still be enforced.
Secondly, the public security organs are explicitly given the relevant rights in law. If they refuse to pay the fine within three months, they can revoke the driving license, vehicle driving license, various licenses and business licenses of the penalty personnel, from deposits and loans and the state. All kinds of welfare benefits enjoyed within the scope of local policies are fined. It is forbidden to purchase train tickets, airline tickets, tickets, and suspend various certificates. It is forbidden to apply for bank credit cards within five years, cancel any subsistence allowances, and purchase affordable housing. .
The third is the implementation of the 'Social Service Order.'
Author: Fly Skynet All rights reserved.
The author and original source and this statement must be indicated in the form of a link when reprinting.
Copyright Notice：Original article of this site, in2018/07/25 casino lugano dress code，由 You Know Publish。More