摘要
以"行政优先"为原则、"刑事先理"为例外进行行刑衔接的机制构建和程序安排,不仅是对行政犯罪本质的坚守和刑事司法使命的科学定位,而且是对行政机关首次裁决权和司法裁决终极性的尊重,更是对行政权与司法权的国家权力配置及其分权制衡机制的捍卫。因而行政执法证据不仅有必要转化为刑事诉讼证据,而且必须区别不同的证据类型,依法分别采取直接调取转化、重新收集转化、授权委托转化等不同方式进行。
The mechanism construction and procedural arrangement of keeping ＂Administrative penalty taking priority＂ as the principle and ＂criminal penalty taking priority＂ as an exception within administrative-criminal penalty connection is not only an accurate reflection of the essence of administrative crimes and a scientific definition of the mission of criminal justice, but also the safeguard of the state power assignment as well as the check and balance mechanism between the administrative power and judicial power. Thus, it is necessary to transfer the evidences collected from administrative law enforcement activities to criminal procedural evidences. Additionally, according to different types of evidence, we must use different transforming approaches, such as directly applying the evidences, recollecting the evidences and authorizing specialized organizations or experts to test the evidences, etc..
出处
《北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第2期136-146,共11页
Journal of Peking University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)
基金
教育部新世纪人才支持计划项目"刑法的经济学分析"(项目批准号:NCET-09-0830)
教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目"中国刑法现代化的道德使命"(项目批准号:2009JJD820012)的阶段性成果
关键词
行政犯罪
行刑衔接
归责程序
证据转化
Administrative Crime, administrative-criminal penalty connection, imputative procedure,evidence transformation
作者简介
作者简介：田宏杰，女，重庆人，中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心教授。
