罚金刑应用实证研究
|
摘要
当前,我国刑事司法建设处于从传统到现代的制度转型时期,法制规范建构应当立足于我国的传统文化和定性定量的犯罪认知体系。在全球法律文化交流日益频繁的今天,正确认知两大法系和前苏联刑法与我国刑法的差异,是当前刑事法规范研究的重要任务。犯罪和刑罚体系的建构不可忽略既定环境下的规范意识和社会控制体系,更不可能一蹴而就。如何在域内外法律辨析基础上进行法律移植和规范借鉴,这是我国刑事法建设过程中不可或缺的一门必修课。否则,我国的制定法规范难以与我国的法制体系相契合。
过去30年,我国刑事法学界的通说认为罚金刑是刑罚轻缓化和刑罚文明的表现,外国刑事司法实践中的罚金刑正在被扩大适用,罚金刑作为刑事制裁措施高比例应用于犯罪控制。由于我国79年刑法未广泛规定罚金刑,受选科罚金刑影响,当时我国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用比率并不太高。在外国刑事司法的罚金适用率数据影响下,我国多数学者从1985年开始一直认为我国应当提高罚金刑适用率和扩大其适用范围。在此背景之下,我国1997年刑法以并处罚金方式进行了扩大立法,以至于刑法分则中近1/3的罪名有罚金刑条款,并且对常态型财产犯罪均规定了并处罚金。然而,新刑法修订后,罚金刑在刑事司法中出现了非常严重的难以执行问题。从2000年最高法院颁布司法解释制定罚金刑执行规范开始,近10年来我国刑事司法的罚金刑难以执行局面不但没有被解决,罚金刑执行率反而越来越低。全国范围内,各基层法院和高级法院均毫无例外地出现高比例的罚金刑不能执行的现状。
为什么外国刑事司法中普遍适用的罚金刑,在移入到我国刑事司法后,就出现如此严重南橘北枳的规范不适问题?是我国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用过于频繁,还是罚金刑与我国的刑事违法体系不相协调?是罚金刑判罚数额过高超过被告人的财产支付能力,还是罚金适用于本不应该适用的犯罪人和罪名?罚金刑应用于刑事司法实践,是出于刑罚体系的不得已选择,还是着眼于刑罚文明的征表?这些问题都属于重大刑法基本理论问题。因此,重新认识外国刑事司法中的罚金刑,并探索我国罚金刑难以执行的根源,从而为我国的罚金刑改革献策是本文的核心任务。
本文第一章通过文献综述,介绍了我国理论界30年来罚金刑研究的近况,笔者欲在本部分说明的问题是：(1)我国的罚金刑研究是怎么得出结论的,是充分分析外国刑事司法中的罚金刑,还是理论推测；(2)由谁提出,并因何原因广泛应用于司法实践；(3)过去30年中国刑法学界罚金刑研究的理论走向是什么,以及这种走向发生的原因是什么?针对上述三个问题,笔者得出的结论如下：(1)主张扩大罚金刑立法的依据不充分,我国对外国罚金刑的认识起源于两位法学前辈客观而全方位介绍外国罚金刑主要适用于轻微违法和交通违法等行政犯,后来的多数研究成果忽略这一关键问题,并此基础上主观而片面性地提倡我国应扩大罚金刑。外国罚金现状直接取材于4位外国学者对外国罚金适用的零星介绍,缺乏对外国罚金刑的系统实证考查。(2)我国对外国罚金刑的司法适用情况存在一定误解,外国的罚金适用数据距离我国的立法已经相距甚远,我国的罚金研究无法与外国的真实司法环境适时跟进。(3)忽略外国刑事司法中的罚金适用对象,未细致而准确地对罚金刑适用对象进行研究,外国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用对象至少有交通违法和轻微违法两大块在我国已经为非刑事违法。(4)理论研究的自相矛盾造成司法资源的浪费,多数研究者在1997年以前大力主张扩大罚金刑适用范围和增加罚金刑适用力度,2000年后又投入大量人力物力资源去研究和确立司法对策以解决扩大罚金刑所产生的执行难问题。
本文第二章通过对我国三个基层法院2010年的刑事判决书进行统计,以及全国范围内16个地区的考察,了解我国的罚金量刑和执行情况。在本部分第一节中,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)我国的罚金整体适用率水平如何,以及具体犯罪中的罚金适用情况；(2)罚金主要适用于什么罪名,以及何种违法类型；(3)罚金主要适用对象是什么,是自然人犯罪,还是单位犯罪；(4)罚金的适用模式是什么,是单处罚金,还是并处罚金；(5)罚金判罚数额如何；(6)被判处罚金的犯罪人财产支付能力如何。本部分第二节主要调查并分析我国的罚金执行状况,全国范围内罚金案件的欠缴或不支付情况是本节的中心。针对上述几个问题,本文的回答如下：(1)我国三个基层法院罚金整体适用水平达63.8%(1000个犯罪人中有638个被罚金),全国16个地区法院的平均罚金适用率达56.9%(1000个犯罪人中有569个犯罪人被判处罚金),财产犯罪罚金适用率接近100%；(2)罚金主要适用于财产犯罪,三个基层法院平均达80.7%(1000个罚金案件中有807个是财产犯罪)；(3)罚金主要适用于自然人犯罪(98.5%),单位犯罪罚金仅占极少数部分(1.5%)；(4)罚金主要通过并处罚金方式(96.9%),单处罚金占非常少数部分(3.1%)；(5)罚金刑数额较高,且需要数月工资支付；(6)罚金案件主要适用于低学历犯罪人,财产支付能力不足；(7)罚金案件不能支付的现象非常严重,全国范围内的调查显示,超过71.5%的罚金案件不能执行。
本文第三章通过对34个国家或地区的犯罪统计进行分析,研究外国刑事司法中的罚金案件适用情况。在本部分第一节中,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)外国刑事法中的罚金适用趋势如何；(2)罚金主要适用于何种罪名及违法类型；(3)外国罚金的判罚数额如何；(4)外国罚金判罚的刑事诉讼程序是什么。针对上述问题,本文给出的答案是：(1)外国刑事司法中的罚金刑自从上世纪70年代开始己呈明显下降趋势；(2)罚金案件主要适用于轻微违法,以及交通违法等行政犯案件(超过3/5)；(3)罚金判罚数额较低,罚金仅需被告人数天工资；(4)罚金案件主要通过非诉讼的简易程序判处。本部分第二节主要通过对外国刑事违法体系进行分级,也即,对包含轻微违法的整体违法体系和排除轻微违法后的实质违法体系进行不同层次的分析,并进而介绍不同违法体系的罚金案件适用水平差异。因此,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)各违法体系的罚金适用率水平如何；(2)各违法体系中的罚金适用对象如何；(3)罚金适用模式如何。本文给出的答案是：(1)整体违法体系下部分国家因轻微违法案件的影响而普遍适用罚金,但部分国家的罚金刑出现非常明显的低水平现象(低于10%),实质违法体系中各国的罚金刑适用都出现明显的低水平现象(普遍低于20%)；(2)罚金案件在整体违法体系中主要适用于交通违法,实质违法中财产犯罪很少适用罚金(约10%)；(3)罚金案件主要通过单处罚金方式适用于刑事违法(超过4/5),并处罚金案件仅占极少部分(最低3.9%)。
在综合比较中外刑事司法中的罚金刑适用现状后,文章基于中外罚金的适用模式和对象的重要区别,本文第四部分提出核心观点——限制适用罚金刑,尤其是财产犯罪罚金刑应当慎用。因此,本部分以独立成节的方式欲回答如下问题：(1)西方社会的罚金刑具备什么功能；(2)中国刑法中的罚金刑应当关注的现实问题是什么；(3)中国罚金刑执行难的根源是什么；(4)解决罚金刑执行难的可行方案是什么。系统分析前述各部分后,本文给出的答案是：(1)外国刑事司法中的罚金刑具有教育和预防功能,违法体系调节功能,效率保障功能,犯罪体系调节功能；(2)我国刑事司法中的罚金刑必须立足于我国刑事司法中的现状,注意刑法规范的适应性,司法程序适应性,司法观念适应性；(3)基于上述分析,可以发现我国的罚金执行难根源在于,无选择适用可能的并处罚金刑,盲目信赖罚金刑,罚金数额过于确定而缺乏裁量权,罚金数额过高被告人难以承受,罚金案件集中于生存型财产犯罪；(4)改革罚金刑的可行方案应当是降低罚金数额限制,判处与犯罪人支付能力相适应的罚金数额,以及改必须判处罚金刑的“应当”型模式为可选择适用罚金的“可以”型模式。
由于罚金刑超过80%适用于财产犯罪,且为并处罚金,本文认为我国的罚金刑执行难最可行的解决办法是控制对财产犯罪适用罚金。基于低学历财产犯罪人存在明显的支付能力缺陷,高数额的罚金刑与自由刑的并处必然导致大量罚金不能支付。因此,建立与我国刑事法相适应的刑事制裁体系的前提是,正确认识外国刑事罚金刑所对应的特定违法体系,认识罚金刑的扩大适用并非世界性趋势,以及不同国家将罚金刑作为刑事制裁措施的立法背景。
回顾摘要,本文认为,只有正确重新定位外国刑事法中的罚金刑,才有可能建立与中国立法和司法相适应的罚金适用体系,我国的罚金刑立法和司法特色建设也才具有意义。已有研究对罚金刑的理论探讨非常丰富,本文注重实证性研究,因此在理论分析上着墨不多,尤其是犯罪体系和犯罪概念的分析并未详细展开,这需要未来做更多更进一步的研究。
The China's law should base on its traditional culture, at present time, and quantitative and qualitative system for crime, because the construction of criminal justice lies on the transformative period from traditional to modern time. With the global communication more often, that how to find out what is the different thing of China's law from both the continental and Anglo-American is the important mission for contemporary criminal research. Building the crime and penal system never success without considering of regulatory ideology and social control system, let alone start once for all. How to learn from foreign law based on differentiating the various laws is a necessary course for criminal justice construction, or the China's law would never find his perfect way to match legal system.
The mainstream academics in the last thirty years insisted on that criminal fine represent the lenience and global civilization of criminal justice, and that criminal fine was extending to more crime as an expression by increasing ratio of application. By contrast, the criminal law promulgated in1979did not set criminal fine as often as oversea, and our criminal fine ratio, as a result, the applying percentage of criminal fine is very low with the impact of optional method for criminal fine. Influenced by the oversea trend of criminal fine, most of scholars recommended that China should extend crime fine to more crimes and increase the application ratio of fine since1985. Accordingly, the1997criminal law extend criminal fine by mandatory fine with imprisonment, and that cause almost1st over three of crime in specific provisions of criminal law, especially for all property crime in daily life. However, the criminal fine was so hard to be paid by offenders after the new law applied to criminal justice in1997.
Why does the criminal fine used very often in oversea countries describe the cockeyed phenomenon that law unmatched with China? Could it be explained by either criminal fine was used more often than it should be, or the criminal fine wasn't proper for criminal justice system? Could it be explained by either the criminal fine amount was higher than the level which the offender can afford, or criminal fine should not be used for criminals and crime in China? Fine used for criminal justice was no choice or on behalf of penalty civilization? Thus, the dissertation focus on that thinking over criminal fine in oversea countries, and seeking to find out its reason why criminal fine in China was so hard to pay, and propose for reformation of criminal justice.
By. literature review, chapter one introduce the Chinese academic researches about criminal fine in last thirty years. The author seeks to issue questions as below:(1) How do researchers in China conclude the situation of criminal fine, either fully analyze oversea criminal fine, or theoretical presumption?(2) Who recommend using fine, and why fine was overloaded in criminal justice?(3) What is the academic trend of criminal fine in China, and why it happened? Responded to issues, the author generates that:(1) There is no evidential analysis applied to criminal fine research. Two previous scholars introduce that the oversea trend of criminal fine was mainly applied to minor offence and regulatory offenses such as traffic offence, however, most scholar ignore the objective analysis and partially recommend increasing criminal fine in China. Empirical data for criminal fine in oversea countries absorbed directly from a few papers or books written or translated by four foreigners, without systematical investigation.(2) It do exists stable misunderstanding to Chinese academic fields and that lead China's law to mismatch the empirical data which is far away the time Chinese scholars used.(3) Ignoring the objects of criminal fine applied in oversea countries is so different from China that minor offences and traffic offences which is crime in oversea countries but decriminalized in China.(4) The conflict between academic research cause serious waste of judicial resource. Most researchers highly recommended, before1997, to extend the boundary of fine and increase the level of criminal fine in China. However, after2000the national organs invest again plentiful human resource and promulgate judicial documents to deal with the serious problem of default since extended criminal fine.
Chapter two analyzes the application and payment of fine in China by both empirical data from three primary courts and sixteen districts. In the first part, the dissertation tries to answer the following questions:(1) What is the general level of criminal fine, and what is the situation of specific crime in China?(2) What is the main part of crime which criminal fine applied to, and specific classification?(3) What is the main objects criminal fine applied to either legal unit or individuals?(4) What mode criminal fine used for either independently using or complementary fine with imprisonment?(5) What is the amount of criminal fine?(6) What is the financial ability offender pay for criminal fine? In the second part, this dissertation tries to investigate the level of fine payment and default in nationwide which are the center of this paper.
For these issues, the author answer as following:(1) The general level of fine payment in three primary court up to63.8%, that is,638offenders per1000offenders were sentenced to fine, the mean level in16nationwide court is56.9%,which means569offender were punished by fine per1000offender, but the percentage level in property crime increase to100%.(2) Criminal fine mainly applied to property crime,80.7%of criminal fine consist of property crime.(3) Fine mainly applied to individual crime which takes up98.5%of criminal fine, and quite few of legal unit criminals which is only1.5%.(4) Offender was punished by complementary fine which is increase to96.9%, and only3.1%for legal unit criminals.(5) The amount of fine is so high that offenders have to use wage of several months.(6) Criminal fine mainly applied to offender with low education level and poor ability to pay fine.(7) The nationwide phenomenon of fine default is so serious that71.5%of offender with fine penalty cannot pay.
Chapter three analyse criminal fine payment outside China by criminal statistics in34oversea countries or districts. In division1of this chapter, the author plan to coping with issues below:(1) What is the general trend of criminal fine?(2) What kind of crimes and violations are the main sources of criminal fine?(3) How about criminal fine amount?(4) What is criminal procedure for criminal fine in other countries? For these issues, the author answers as below:(1) Criminal fine in other countries has witnessed an undoubtfully decreasing trend since1970s.(2) Fine cases mainly applied to minor offences, and regulatory offences such as traffic offences.(3) The amount of fine is so low that offender can pay fine by several days.(4) Criminal fine case mainly sentenced by non-prosecution criminal procedure. With the classification of offences, the author assort offence into general offense which include but not limited minor offences and serious offence, and true criminal system without minor offences. Accordingly. the second division in chapter three specify the criminal fine level in different offenses system, and try to answer the following questions:(1) How about the specific level of criminal fine in different offenses system?(2) What are the main objects criminal fine applied to offender?(3) What pattern of the criminal fine was used for, either complementary fine with imprisonment or independent fine without imprisonment? The author answers as below:(1) Criminal fine is commonly used in general offences system because of the minor offences included, but some of countries's level of fine is very low (below10%). However, the serious offences system in every country is very low without exception (20%or less).(2) Criminal fine cases applies to general offences come mainly from traffic offences, property crime in serious crimes take up a little part (around10%). Criminal fine without imprisonment is the main part of fine for crime (more than4/5), and very little fine with imprisonment (the lowest countries3.9%).
Comparing Chinese criminal justice to oversea countries, chapter four conclude that China should control criminal fine, especially property crime, relied on the different mode and object. Thus this dissertation tries to answer the following questions:(1) What functions do the criminal fine played in Western societies?(2) What issues China's fine in criminal law should focus on?(3) What reasons can explain the default of fine in China?(4) What practical schedules can be applied to deal with default? After analyzing every issue, the paper issues the following answer:(1) Criminal fine in oversea countries play a function of education and prevention, adjust legal system, save efficiency, regulate crime system.(2) Criminal fine in China should consider the situation and environment of China, criminal law's adaptability, adaptability of judicial procedure, and adaptability of judicial conception.(3) The reasons why criminal fine in China is so hard to execute are that complementary fine is impossible for choice, that over-trust criminal fine more than it should be, that certain amount of minimum fine unavailable for arbitration, that the amount of criminal fine is higher than the financial ability the offender affordable, that criminal fine concentrate property crime for life support.(4) The practical schedules for criminal fine reformation are decrease the limitation of amount, and sentenced criminal fine match with the offender's ability of financial payment, and transfer the mandatory fine to optional criminal fine.
In this dissertation the best solution for fine default in China is to refuse fine with imprisonment from property crime since fine for property crime take up80%of total fine. By consideration of criminals who committed property crime is hard to pay fine with low education, complementary fine with large amount must bring about fine default. Therefore the logic premise that construct the proper criminal punishment system suit for China's criminal justice is to realize that the specific violation system and its fine in oversea countries, and that the world trend isn't to extending fine as Chinese scholar recommended, and that the legislative background why criminal fine regard as criminal penal system in different countries.
Reviewing abstract above, the author thinks that there is no way to build proper criminal fine system adapt for China's legislation and justice, if we cannot reconsider the fine system abroad and aim to construct meaningful criminal legislation and justice. The previous researches discuss deeply the theory of criminal fine, however, this article focus on the empirical studies. To be honest, there is a serious defect in theoretical analysis in the paper, especially the crime system and crime definition related to fine was limited to some narrow topics. The author still has to figure out more issues and theoretical analysis in future.
过去30年,我国刑事法学界的通说认为罚金刑是刑罚轻缓化和刑罚文明的表现,外国刑事司法实践中的罚金刑正在被扩大适用,罚金刑作为刑事制裁措施高比例应用于犯罪控制。由于我国79年刑法未广泛规定罚金刑,受选科罚金刑影响,当时我国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用比率并不太高。在外国刑事司法的罚金适用率数据影响下,我国多数学者从1985年开始一直认为我国应当提高罚金刑适用率和扩大其适用范围。在此背景之下,我国1997年刑法以并处罚金方式进行了扩大立法,以至于刑法分则中近1/3的罪名有罚金刑条款,并且对常态型财产犯罪均规定了并处罚金。然而,新刑法修订后,罚金刑在刑事司法中出现了非常严重的难以执行问题。从2000年最高法院颁布司法解释制定罚金刑执行规范开始,近10年来我国刑事司法的罚金刑难以执行局面不但没有被解决,罚金刑执行率反而越来越低。全国范围内,各基层法院和高级法院均毫无例外地出现高比例的罚金刑不能执行的现状。
为什么外国刑事司法中普遍适用的罚金刑,在移入到我国刑事司法后,就出现如此严重南橘北枳的规范不适问题?是我国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用过于频繁,还是罚金刑与我国的刑事违法体系不相协调?是罚金刑判罚数额过高超过被告人的财产支付能力,还是罚金适用于本不应该适用的犯罪人和罪名?罚金刑应用于刑事司法实践,是出于刑罚体系的不得已选择,还是着眼于刑罚文明的征表?这些问题都属于重大刑法基本理论问题。因此,重新认识外国刑事司法中的罚金刑,并探索我国罚金刑难以执行的根源,从而为我国的罚金刑改革献策是本文的核心任务。
本文第一章通过文献综述,介绍了我国理论界30年来罚金刑研究的近况,笔者欲在本部分说明的问题是：(1)我国的罚金刑研究是怎么得出结论的,是充分分析外国刑事司法中的罚金刑,还是理论推测；(2)由谁提出,并因何原因广泛应用于司法实践；(3)过去30年中国刑法学界罚金刑研究的理论走向是什么,以及这种走向发生的原因是什么?针对上述三个问题,笔者得出的结论如下：(1)主张扩大罚金刑立法的依据不充分,我国对外国罚金刑的认识起源于两位法学前辈客观而全方位介绍外国罚金刑主要适用于轻微违法和交通违法等行政犯,后来的多数研究成果忽略这一关键问题,并此基础上主观而片面性地提倡我国应扩大罚金刑。外国罚金现状直接取材于4位外国学者对外国罚金适用的零星介绍,缺乏对外国罚金刑的系统实证考查。(2)我国对外国罚金刑的司法适用情况存在一定误解,外国的罚金适用数据距离我国的立法已经相距甚远,我国的罚金研究无法与外国的真实司法环境适时跟进。(3)忽略外国刑事司法中的罚金适用对象,未细致而准确地对罚金刑适用对象进行研究,外国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用对象至少有交通违法和轻微违法两大块在我国已经为非刑事违法。(4)理论研究的自相矛盾造成司法资源的浪费,多数研究者在1997年以前大力主张扩大罚金刑适用范围和增加罚金刑适用力度,2000年后又投入大量人力物力资源去研究和确立司法对策以解决扩大罚金刑所产生的执行难问题。
本文第二章通过对我国三个基层法院2010年的刑事判决书进行统计,以及全国范围内16个地区的考察,了解我国的罚金量刑和执行情况。在本部分第一节中,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)我国的罚金整体适用率水平如何,以及具体犯罪中的罚金适用情况；(2)罚金主要适用于什么罪名,以及何种违法类型；(3)罚金主要适用对象是什么,是自然人犯罪,还是单位犯罪；(4)罚金的适用模式是什么,是单处罚金,还是并处罚金；(5)罚金判罚数额如何；(6)被判处罚金的犯罪人财产支付能力如何。本部分第二节主要调查并分析我国的罚金执行状况,全国范围内罚金案件的欠缴或不支付情况是本节的中心。针对上述几个问题,本文的回答如下：(1)我国三个基层法院罚金整体适用水平达63.8%(1000个犯罪人中有638个被罚金),全国16个地区法院的平均罚金适用率达56.9%(1000个犯罪人中有569个犯罪人被判处罚金),财产犯罪罚金适用率接近100%；(2)罚金主要适用于财产犯罪,三个基层法院平均达80.7%(1000个罚金案件中有807个是财产犯罪)；(3)罚金主要适用于自然人犯罪(98.5%),单位犯罪罚金仅占极少数部分(1.5%)；(4)罚金主要通过并处罚金方式(96.9%),单处罚金占非常少数部分(3.1%)；(5)罚金刑数额较高,且需要数月工资支付；(6)罚金案件主要适用于低学历犯罪人,财产支付能力不足；(7)罚金案件不能支付的现象非常严重,全国范围内的调查显示,超过71.5%的罚金案件不能执行。
本文第三章通过对34个国家或地区的犯罪统计进行分析,研究外国刑事司法中的罚金案件适用情况。在本部分第一节中,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)外国刑事法中的罚金适用趋势如何；(2)罚金主要适用于何种罪名及违法类型；(3)外国罚金的判罚数额如何；(4)外国罚金判罚的刑事诉讼程序是什么。针对上述问题,本文给出的答案是：(1)外国刑事司法中的罚金刑自从上世纪70年代开始己呈明显下降趋势；(2)罚金案件主要适用于轻微违法,以及交通违法等行政犯案件(超过3/5)；(3)罚金判罚数额较低,罚金仅需被告人数天工资；(4)罚金案件主要通过非诉讼的简易程序判处。本部分第二节主要通过对外国刑事违法体系进行分级,也即,对包含轻微违法的整体违法体系和排除轻微违法后的实质违法体系进行不同层次的分析,并进而介绍不同违法体系的罚金案件适用水平差异。因此,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)各违法体系的罚金适用率水平如何；(2)各违法体系中的罚金适用对象如何；(3)罚金适用模式如何。本文给出的答案是：(1)整体违法体系下部分国家因轻微违法案件的影响而普遍适用罚金,但部分国家的罚金刑出现非常明显的低水平现象(低于10%),实质违法体系中各国的罚金刑适用都出现明显的低水平现象(普遍低于20%)；(2)罚金案件在整体违法体系中主要适用于交通违法,实质违法中财产犯罪很少适用罚金(约10%)；(3)罚金案件主要通过单处罚金方式适用于刑事违法(超过4/5),并处罚金案件仅占极少部分(最低3.9%)。
在综合比较中外刑事司法中的罚金刑适用现状后,文章基于中外罚金的适用模式和对象的重要区别,本文第四部分提出核心观点——限制适用罚金刑,尤其是财产犯罪罚金刑应当慎用。因此,本部分以独立成节的方式欲回答如下问题：(1)西方社会的罚金刑具备什么功能；(2)中国刑法中的罚金刑应当关注的现实问题是什么；(3)中国罚金刑执行难的根源是什么；(4)解决罚金刑执行难的可行方案是什么。系统分析前述各部分后,本文给出的答案是：(1)外国刑事司法中的罚金刑具有教育和预防功能,违法体系调节功能,效率保障功能,犯罪体系调节功能；(2)我国刑事司法中的罚金刑必须立足于我国刑事司法中的现状,注意刑法规范的适应性,司法程序适应性,司法观念适应性；(3)基于上述分析,可以发现我国的罚金执行难根源在于,无选择适用可能的并处罚金刑,盲目信赖罚金刑,罚金数额过于确定而缺乏裁量权,罚金数额过高被告人难以承受,罚金案件集中于生存型财产犯罪；(4)改革罚金刑的可行方案应当是降低罚金数额限制,判处与犯罪人支付能力相适应的罚金数额,以及改必须判处罚金刑的“应当”型模式为可选择适用罚金的“可以”型模式。
由于罚金刑超过80%适用于财产犯罪,且为并处罚金,本文认为我国的罚金刑执行难最可行的解决办法是控制对财产犯罪适用罚金。基于低学历财产犯罪人存在明显的支付能力缺陷,高数额的罚金刑与自由刑的并处必然导致大量罚金不能支付。因此,建立与我国刑事法相适应的刑事制裁体系的前提是,正确认识外国刑事罚金刑所对应的特定违法体系,认识罚金刑的扩大适用并非世界性趋势,以及不同国家将罚金刑作为刑事制裁措施的立法背景。
回顾摘要,本文认为,只有正确重新定位外国刑事法中的罚金刑,才有可能建立与中国立法和司法相适应的罚金适用体系,我国的罚金刑立法和司法特色建设也才具有意义。已有研究对罚金刑的理论探讨非常丰富,本文注重实证性研究,因此在理论分析上着墨不多,尤其是犯罪体系和犯罪概念的分析并未详细展开,这需要未来做更多更进一步的研究。
The China's law should base on its traditional culture, at present time, and quantitative and qualitative system for crime, because the construction of criminal justice lies on the transformative period from traditional to modern time. With the global communication more often, that how to find out what is the different thing of China's law from both the continental and Anglo-American is the important mission for contemporary criminal research. Building the crime and penal system never success without considering of regulatory ideology and social control system, let alone start once for all. How to learn from foreign law based on differentiating the various laws is a necessary course for criminal justice construction, or the China's law would never find his perfect way to match legal system.
The mainstream academics in the last thirty years insisted on that criminal fine represent the lenience and global civilization of criminal justice, and that criminal fine was extending to more crime as an expression by increasing ratio of application. By contrast, the criminal law promulgated in1979did not set criminal fine as often as oversea, and our criminal fine ratio, as a result, the applying percentage of criminal fine is very low with the impact of optional method for criminal fine. Influenced by the oversea trend of criminal fine, most of scholars recommended that China should extend crime fine to more crimes and increase the application ratio of fine since1985. Accordingly, the1997criminal law extend criminal fine by mandatory fine with imprisonment, and that cause almost1st over three of crime in specific provisions of criminal law, especially for all property crime in daily life. However, the criminal fine was so hard to be paid by offenders after the new law applied to criminal justice in1997.
Why does the criminal fine used very often in oversea countries describe the cockeyed phenomenon that law unmatched with China? Could it be explained by either criminal fine was used more often than it should be, or the criminal fine wasn't proper for criminal justice system? Could it be explained by either the criminal fine amount was higher than the level which the offender can afford, or criminal fine should not be used for criminals and crime in China? Fine used for criminal justice was no choice or on behalf of penalty civilization? Thus, the dissertation focus on that thinking over criminal fine in oversea countries, and seeking to find out its reason why criminal fine in China was so hard to pay, and propose for reformation of criminal justice.
By. literature review, chapter one introduce the Chinese academic researches about criminal fine in last thirty years. The author seeks to issue questions as below:(1) How do researchers in China conclude the situation of criminal fine, either fully analyze oversea criminal fine, or theoretical presumption?(2) Who recommend using fine, and why fine was overloaded in criminal justice?(3) What is the academic trend of criminal fine in China, and why it happened? Responded to issues, the author generates that:(1) There is no evidential analysis applied to criminal fine research. Two previous scholars introduce that the oversea trend of criminal fine was mainly applied to minor offence and regulatory offenses such as traffic offence, however, most scholar ignore the objective analysis and partially recommend increasing criminal fine in China. Empirical data for criminal fine in oversea countries absorbed directly from a few papers or books written or translated by four foreigners, without systematical investigation.(2) It do exists stable misunderstanding to Chinese academic fields and that lead China's law to mismatch the empirical data which is far away the time Chinese scholars used.(3) Ignoring the objects of criminal fine applied in oversea countries is so different from China that minor offences and traffic offences which is crime in oversea countries but decriminalized in China.(4) The conflict between academic research cause serious waste of judicial resource. Most researchers highly recommended, before1997, to extend the boundary of fine and increase the level of criminal fine in China. However, after2000the national organs invest again plentiful human resource and promulgate judicial documents to deal with the serious problem of default since extended criminal fine.
Chapter two analyzes the application and payment of fine in China by both empirical data from three primary courts and sixteen districts. In the first part, the dissertation tries to answer the following questions:(1) What is the general level of criminal fine, and what is the situation of specific crime in China?(2) What is the main part of crime which criminal fine applied to, and specific classification?(3) What is the main objects criminal fine applied to either legal unit or individuals?(4) What mode criminal fine used for either independently using or complementary fine with imprisonment?(5) What is the amount of criminal fine?(6) What is the financial ability offender pay for criminal fine? In the second part, this dissertation tries to investigate the level of fine payment and default in nationwide which are the center of this paper.
For these issues, the author answer as following:(1) The general level of fine payment in three primary court up to63.8%, that is,638offenders per1000offenders were sentenced to fine, the mean level in16nationwide court is56.9%,which means569offender were punished by fine per1000offender, but the percentage level in property crime increase to100%.(2) Criminal fine mainly applied to property crime,80.7%of criminal fine consist of property crime.(3) Fine mainly applied to individual crime which takes up98.5%of criminal fine, and quite few of legal unit criminals which is only1.5%.(4) Offender was punished by complementary fine which is increase to96.9%, and only3.1%for legal unit criminals.(5) The amount of fine is so high that offenders have to use wage of several months.(6) Criminal fine mainly applied to offender with low education level and poor ability to pay fine.(7) The nationwide phenomenon of fine default is so serious that71.5%of offender with fine penalty cannot pay.
Chapter three analyse criminal fine payment outside China by criminal statistics in34oversea countries or districts. In division1of this chapter, the author plan to coping with issues below:(1) What is the general trend of criminal fine?(2) What kind of crimes and violations are the main sources of criminal fine?(3) How about criminal fine amount?(4) What is criminal procedure for criminal fine in other countries? For these issues, the author answers as below:(1) Criminal fine in other countries has witnessed an undoubtfully decreasing trend since1970s.(2) Fine cases mainly applied to minor offences, and regulatory offences such as traffic offences.(3) The amount of fine is so low that offender can pay fine by several days.(4) Criminal fine case mainly sentenced by non-prosecution criminal procedure. With the classification of offences, the author assort offence into general offense which include but not limited minor offences and serious offence, and true criminal system without minor offences. Accordingly. the second division in chapter three specify the criminal fine level in different offenses system, and try to answer the following questions:(1) How about the specific level of criminal fine in different offenses system?(2) What are the main objects criminal fine applied to offender?(3) What pattern of the criminal fine was used for, either complementary fine with imprisonment or independent fine without imprisonment? The author answers as below:(1) Criminal fine is commonly used in general offences system because of the minor offences included, but some of countries's level of fine is very low (below10%). However, the serious offences system in every country is very low without exception (20%or less).(2) Criminal fine cases applies to general offences come mainly from traffic offences, property crime in serious crimes take up a little part (around10%). Criminal fine without imprisonment is the main part of fine for crime (more than4/5), and very little fine with imprisonment (the lowest countries3.9%).
Comparing Chinese criminal justice to oversea countries, chapter four conclude that China should control criminal fine, especially property crime, relied on the different mode and object. Thus this dissertation tries to answer the following questions:(1) What functions do the criminal fine played in Western societies?(2) What issues China's fine in criminal law should focus on?(3) What reasons can explain the default of fine in China?(4) What practical schedules can be applied to deal with default? After analyzing every issue, the paper issues the following answer:(1) Criminal fine in oversea countries play a function of education and prevention, adjust legal system, save efficiency, regulate crime system.(2) Criminal fine in China should consider the situation and environment of China, criminal law's adaptability, adaptability of judicial procedure, and adaptability of judicial conception.(3) The reasons why criminal fine in China is so hard to execute are that complementary fine is impossible for choice, that over-trust criminal fine more than it should be, that certain amount of minimum fine unavailable for arbitration, that the amount of criminal fine is higher than the financial ability the offender affordable, that criminal fine concentrate property crime for life support.(4) The practical schedules for criminal fine reformation are decrease the limitation of amount, and sentenced criminal fine match with the offender's ability of financial payment, and transfer the mandatory fine to optional criminal fine.
In this dissertation the best solution for fine default in China is to refuse fine with imprisonment from property crime since fine for property crime take up80%of total fine. By consideration of criminals who committed property crime is hard to pay fine with low education, complementary fine with large amount must bring about fine default. Therefore the logic premise that construct the proper criminal punishment system suit for China's criminal justice is to realize that the specific violation system and its fine in oversea countries, and that the world trend isn't to extending fine as Chinese scholar recommended, and that the legislative background why criminal fine regard as criminal penal system in different countries.
Reviewing abstract above, the author thinks that there is no way to build proper criminal fine system adapt for China's legislation and justice, if we cannot reconsider the fine system abroad and aim to construct meaningful criminal legislation and justice. The previous researches discuss deeply the theory of criminal fine, however, this article focus on the empirical studies. To be honest, there is a serious defect in theoretical analysis in the paper, especially the crime system and crime definition related to fine was limited to some narrow topics. The author still has to figure out more issues and theoretical analysis in future.
引文
① 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期：马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。
② 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期：马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。
③ 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期;马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。 03期。
② 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期；马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。
③ 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期；马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。
④ 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期；马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年
① 何鹏：《资产阶级国家罚金的改革》,《国外法学》1984年04期。
② (日)菊田幸一：《犯罪学》,成文堂1978年,第380页。
③ 何鹏：《资产阶级国家罚金的改革》,《国外法学》1984年04期。
① 周晖国：《论罚金刑》,《中国法学》1984年04期。
① 周晖国：《论罚金刑》,《中国法学》1984年04期。
② 周晖国：《论罚金刑》,《中国法学》1984年04期。
③ 笔者在阅读早期论文时发现,1985-1989年期间发表的研究论文未见引注,也未见做任何文献综述。
④ 张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
① 张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
② 张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
③ 张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
① 赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年02期(日本从1973年到1977年罚金适用率达到96%……我国应当扩大罚金刑适用范围,将罚金刑扩大到财产犯罪、贪利性犯罪、过失性犯罪、故意犯罪中)；邓修明：《罚金刑的地位与适用范围》,《法学杂志》1989年02期(日本从1964年至1968年罚金适用率最低年份也是97.2%,英国1968年罚金适用占90%案件以上,西德1969年罚金适用率达到70%以上,甚至有的年份达到84%……我国应扩大罚金刑适用范围并且我国不区分主刑和附加刑)；李洁：《罚金刑应当上升为主刑论》,《当代法学》1989年03期(我国罚金刑作为附加刑过于封闭,不适于市场经济发展需求,与国际发展趋势不相适应……罚金刑可以适用于大多数犯罪……扩大罚金刑适用范围是必然要求)。
② 赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年02期。
① 邓又天,邓修明：《略论罚金刑的地位及其适用》,《法律科学》1989年04期。
② 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期;马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期；张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
③ 熊选国：《论罚金刑的立法完善》,载《政治与法律》1989年第4期：赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年02期：张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
④ 赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年02期；张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期：熊选国：《论罚金刑的立法完善》,载《政治与法律》1989年第4期。
⑤ 何鹏教授第一次引用数据时明确说明外国刑事司法中的罚金绝大部分适用在交通犯罪上,文章中无任何倾向性表述我国应当扩大罚金刑。但是1985年—89年发表的论文中均未见到有任何信息提示外国罚金主要适用于交通违法,而且也并未发现有数据支撑扩大罚金刑立法。直到1991年张明楷教授发表
① 何鹏：《资产阶级罚金刑的改革》,《国外法学》1984年4期(“如英国的治安审判法院在其全部犯人中岁17以上21岁以下被处罚金刑的,1938年为18%,1956年为47%；21岁被判处罚金刑的1938年为32%,1956年达55%(1975年达88%),无论是总数还是比例数都在逐年增加。在联邦德国,罚金刑在全部刑罚中,1882年为25%,1912年为51.8%,1955年为70%,也是年年增加的。在日本,1950年罚金刑为确定判决总数的95.8%,其中大部分是违反道路交通法案件(即‘行政犯’))；石红卫：《罚金刑探析》,《河北法学》2001年第5期(“1959年联邦德国有63%的刑事案件判处罚金,1969年上升为70%,70年代以后,上升为84%左右”……“在日本,1971年至1975年,法院适用罚金占刑事判决总数的96%以上”)；鲜铁可： 《论我国刑法中的罚金刑的立法完善》, 《法商研究》1995年06期(“英国除谋杀罪外,几乎所有的犯罪都适用罚金,1977年英国的治安法院大约97%的刑事案件由这些法院作出裁决……在非交通案件中,有74%是判处罚金的,即使是在打击严重犯罪进行审判的皇家刑事法院有15%的案件也是采用罚金刑”)：邓又天,邓修明：《略论罚金刑的地位及其适用》,《法律科学》1989年04期(日本1964到1968年五年间,最高的比例年度,罚金刑占短期刑判决总数的97.2%。英国1968年判处罚金刑的案件占全部案件总数的90%以上。西德1967年判处罚金刑的占全部案件的62%”)
① Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2001 (cm5696),London,86(2002)..
② Mike Hough & Julian Roberts, Sentencing Trend in Britain,7 Punishment & Society,15(1999),.
③ Mikhail Thomas, Adult Criminal Court Statistics 2003/04,24:12 Canadian Center for Justice Statistics, Catalogue No.85-00211(2004)..
④ Henry R. Wray, Restitution, Fines and Forfeiture,Gaithersburg:United States General Accounting Office, 2(1994)..
⑤ Robert W. Gillespie, Criminal Fine:Do They Pay?.13 The Justice System Journal,373(1989).
⑥ Joel Waldfogel, Are Fines and Prison Terms Used Efficiently? —Evidence on Federal Fraud Offenders,^ Journal of Law & Economics,107(1995).
⑦ National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Final Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Washington:U.S. Government Printing Office,296(1971)..
[1]冯亚东：《理性主义与刑法模式》,中国政法大学出版社,1999年版；
[2]高铭暄,赵秉志：《刑法总论比较研究》,北京大学出版社2008年版；
[3]菊田幸一：《犯罪学》,成文堂,1978年；
[4]张明楷：《外国刑法刚要》(第二版),清华大学出版社2007年版；
[5]马克昌：《比较刑法原理》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[1]储槐植,汪永乐：《再论我国刑法中犯罪概念的定量因素》,《法学研究》2000年2期；
[2]丛梅：《当前犯罪主体的性别特征分析》,《理论与现代化》2008年04期；
[3]重庆一中院课题组：《财产刑执行的调查报告》,《西南政法大学学报》,2004年第5期；
[4]邓文莉：《罚金刑配置地位及范围探讨》,《法学杂志》2008年05期；
[5]邓修明：《罚金刑的地位与适用范围》,《法学杂志》1989年02期；
[6]邓又天,邓修明：《略论罚金刑的地位及其适用》,《法律科学》1989年04期；
[7]杜雪明,陈辉：《加强对未成年犯适用罚金刑的限制》,《人民司法》2002年6期；
[8]费贵廉,曾岚：《扩大适用罚金刑需要解决的问题》,《法学杂志》2000年02期；
[9]冯亚东：《犯罪概念与犯罪客体之功能辨析——以司法客观过程视角的分析》,《中外法学》2008年6期：
[10]冯亚东：《罪刑关系的反思与重构——兼谈罚金刑在中国现阶段之适用》,《中国 社会科学》2006年2期；
[11]高铭暄,孙晓：《宽严相济刑事政策与罚金刑改革》,《法学论坛》2010年2期；
[12]宫厚军：《刍议我国罚金刑执行之完善》,《法学论坛》2006年4期；
[13]韩轶：《对必并制罚金的思考》,《法商研究》2000年05期；
[14]何鹏：《资产阶级国家的刑法改革》,《国外法学》1984年04期；
[15]纪素华：《从经济分析角度论述我国罚金刑的完善》,《人民检察》2002年5期：
[16]江海澜：《谈谈罚金刑的完善——来自司法实践的建议》,《法律适用》1995年5期；
[17]姜公臣,贺新,王哲：《罚金刑适用之瑕疵与立法完善》,《人民检察》2007年20期；
[18]姜国旺,王晨：《罚金困境与出路》,《人民司法》1999年7期；
[19]金川：《建议设立易科罚金刑制度》,《法律适用》2005年7期；
[20]黎宏：《日本近现代刑法学的发展历程及其借鉴意义》,《法学评论》2004年5期；
[21]李超,张凤杰：《预收罚金危害严重》,《人民检察》2001年03期；
[22]李贵方：《罚金易科自由刑比较研究》,《中国法学》1992年01期；
[23]李洁：《罚金刑应当上升为主刑论》,《当代法学》1989年03期；
[24]李洁：《论犯罪定量因素立法化对法定刑模式的要求——以抢劫罪为实例的研究》,《当代法学》2008年3期；
[25]李居全：《也论我国刑法中的犯罪概念的定量因素——与储槐植教授和汪永乐博士商榷》,《法律科学》2001年1期；
[26]李中和：《略论罚金刑的适用》,《法学家》1992年04期；
[27]李忠诚：《罪犯不交清罚金不应阻却自由刑的减刑——兼谈罚金刑执行的对策》,2005年2期；
[28]刘彩灵：《罚金刑执行的困境和出路》,《法律适用》2005年8期；
[29]刘明祥：《论解决罚金刑执行难的立法途径》,《法学家》2009年2期；
[30]刘生荣：《罚金刑的比较研究》,《法学评论》1992年05期；
[31]刘文昌：《对义务兵适用罚金刑的探讨》,《中国刑事法》,1999年05期；
[32]马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期；
[33]马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年3期；
[34]齐文远,王安异：《试论罚金刑的效率》,《法学杂志》1998年4期；
[35]钱叶六：《论中国罚金刑的改革和完善——以探寻罚金刑执行难之解决方案为视 角》,《法学论坛》2005年4期：
[36]邱景辉：《罚金刑执行与监督若干问题研究》,《人民检察》2004年2期：
[37]石红卫：《罚金刑探析》,《河北法学》2001年05期；
[38]史有勇：《以罚金刑逐步取代短期自由刑议》,《法学》1991年1期：
[39]孙秋杰：《论市场经济条件下罚金刑的完善》,《甘肃政法学院学报》1996年1期；
[40]孙喜峰：《对未成年犯罪人适用罚金刑的思考》,《当代法学》2003年5期；
[41]田幸,茅仲华,叶巍：《关于财产刑适用与执行问题的调研报告》,《中国刑事法杂志》2005年3期；
[42]汪红飞：《罚金刑适用范围之立法评析》,《中国刑事法杂志》2002年4期；
[43]王斌：《完善罚金刑的对策》,《法学》2000年02期；
[44]王建生：《扩大适用罚金刑的弊端和对策》,《人民检察》,2008年19期；
[45]王世洲：《罪与非罪的理论与实践——关于德国违反秩序法的几点考察》,《比较法研究》2000年第2期；
[46]王政勋：《定量因素在犯罪成立条件中的地位——兼论犯罪构成体系的完善》,《政法论坛》2007年4期：
[47]吴常青：《对预交罚金做法的反思》,《法学》2010年3期；
[48]吴平：《预交罚金的做法不可取》,《法学杂志》2000年6期；
[49]吴献萍：《罚金刑在环境犯罪中的适用》,《法学杂志》2009年7期；
[50]鲜铁可：《论我国刑法中的罚金刑的立法完善》,《法商研究》1995年6；
[51]熊谋林,陈树娇,《外国罚金刑实证分析：规范借鉴与罚金刑重构》,《光华法学》第6辑,北京：法律出版社,2012年,第106-128页。
[52]熊选国：《论罚金刑的立法完善》,载《政治与法律》1989年4期；
[53]徐莉,黄祥坤：《主动预缴罚金不宜酌情从轻处罚》,《人民检察》2005年05期；
[54]徐章晓盛黎丽：《不宜对未成年人适用罚金》,《人民检察》2003年3期；
[55]杨迪善：《罚金适用中的问题》,《人民司法》1998年10期；
[56]杨方泉：《市场经济条件下应当重视罚金刑的作用》,《现代法学》1995年1期；
[57]杨光,斐维奇等：《建议对未成年犯以“社会服务”代替罚金刑》,《人民检察》2001年12期；
[58]杨均顺：《完善与发展我国罚金刑的思考》,《甘肃政法学院学报》1994年第2期；
[59]一啸：《罚金岂能预交》,《人民检察》1999年11期；
[60]应秀良,《以罚金作为减刑条件的思考》,《法律适用》2007年1期；
[61]于志刚：《关于罚金刑易科制度的批判性思考》,《法学评论》2008年04期；
[62]张明楷：《罚金刑若干问题的再思考》,《中国法学》1991年第4期；
[63]张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期：
[64]赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年2期；
[65]赵廷光：《关于罚金刑替代短期自由刑的可行性研究》,《中外法学》1995年2期；
[66]赵震陆红卫：《浅论罚金刑执行难的解决路径》,《法学杂志》2010年第6期；
[67]钟书峰：《论我国罚金刑的特点及立法完善》,《现代法学》1993年5期：
[68]周光富：《罚金刑执行难之客服》,《政治与法律》2003年06期；
[69]周晖国：《论罚金刑》,《中国法学》1985年04期；
[70]朱旭伟：《罚金执行难的成因和对策》,《现代法学》,1998年4期；
[71]左庆龙：《浅谈我国刑法中的罚金刑》,《河北法学》1999年2期。
[1]崔文修,《关于郑州市金水区2010年国民经济和社会发展计划执行情况及2011年国民经济和社会发展计划(草案)的报告》,郑州金水区发展改革和统计局,2011年4月16日http://www.jinshui.gov.cn/fzggtjj/zwgk/tjfx/webinfo/ 2011/04/1302051783190754.htm；
[2]上海市浦东区统计局：《上海浦东区年鉴2011》,北京：中国统计出版社,2011年版。
[3]上海统计局&国家统计局上海调查总队：《2010年上海市国民经济和社会发展统计公报》,2011年3月3日,载http://www.stats-sh.gov.cn/sjfb/201103/82123.html.
[1]代万旭：《预收保证金——落实罚金刑的可选路径》,《人民法院报》,2008年3月23日http://oldfyb2009..chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=117845；
[2]潘伟明：《缴纳罚金减轻主刑的法理思辨——论以罚抵刑的正当性和合理限制》,武冈市法院网,2010年12月19日http://wgsfy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=327；
[3]全国法院学术讨论委员会组织办公室：《关于公布全国法院第二十一界学术讨论会论文评审结果的通知》,北京：最高人民法院,2009年12月18日；
[4]邓红阳：《公开“晾晒”接受社会监督擅自改动追究法官责任—河南三级法院判决书年内全上网》,法制网,2009年1月11日http://www.legaldaily.com.cn/bm /content/2009-01/12/content_1017468.htm;
[5]东方网：《三人抢劫物品仅值一元被判徒刑并处万元罚金》,2003年3月26日http://news.eastday.com/epublish/gb/Paper148/20031026/class0148000 12/hwz1032680.htm；
[6]佛山市中级人民法院课题组：《关于财产刑执行的调研报告》,广东法院网2009年1月9日http://www.gdcourts.gov.cn/sfdc/t20090108_21335.htm；
[7]黑龙江海伦法院：《只因抢劫一元钱辍学少年被判刑》,中国检察网2011年6月28日http://www.cnjccn.net/news74113.html；
[8]人民网：《上海法院网公开上万份裁判文书以接受社会监督》2006年12月11日http://news.people.com.cn/GB/71648/71653/5153091.html；
[9]师佩军刘红辉：《鲁莽少年抢劫一元钱,不料获刑一年罚五千》,河南高院http://hnfy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=120042；
[10]肖明俊：《财产刑执行问题及其对策研究》,邵阳市中级人民法院网：2009年12月18日http://hnsyzy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=1418；
[11]新华网：《男子抢劫1元钱被判6年生不如死逃亡19年终自首》,2011年4月28日http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2011-04/28/c_12135941.htm；
[12]杨继诗,潘伟：《罚金刑执行难及对策思考》,云南法院网2011年4月8日http://www.gy.yn.gov.cn/Article/spyf/dyq2010/zwxd/201104/22541.html；
[13]詹耘：《要看判决书上网查—成都高新法院率先推行判决书上网制度》,四川法制报,2008年4月17日http://legal.scol.com.cn/2008/04；
[14]中国新闻网：《江苏男子抢劫1元潜逃10余年被判刑10年罚款1万》,2011年10月9日http://www.chinanews.com/fz/2011/10-09/3375592.shtml.
[1]上海市高级人民法院《关于刑事判决中财产刑及财产部分执行的若干意见(试行)》,第19号,2006年；
[2]江苏省高级人民法院：《关于适用与执行财产刑若干问题的意见》；
[3]浙江省高级人民法院：《关于刑事财产刑执行若干问题纪要》；
[4]最高人民法院《关于财产刑执行问题的若干规定》法释(2010)4号；
[5]最高人民法院《关于审理盗窃案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》法释(1998)4号；
[6]最高人民法院《关于适用财产刑若干问题的规定》法释[2000]45号。
[1]Adophe Quetele, RESEARCH ON THE PROPENSITY FOR CRIME AT DIFFERENT AGES (1831a), Translated and Introduced by Sawyer F Sylvester, Cincinnati: Anderson, (1984);
[2]Barbara Wootton, SOCIAL SCIENCE AND SOCIAL PATHOLOGY. London: Geroge Allen and Unwin Ltd, (1959);
[3]Bruno Aubusson de Cavarley, et.al, Dealing with Various Offence Types in Different Criminal Justice Systems - Case Examples, in Jorg-Martin Jehle, Marianne Wade (eds), COPING WITH OVERLOADED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:THE RISE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER ACROSS EUROPE. Heidelberg:Springer, (2006);
[4]David W. Brown, FIGHT YOUR TICKET & WIN IN CALIFORNIA, Berkeley: Nolo Press, (2007);
[5]Douglas Husak, OVERCRIMINALIZATION:THE LIMITS OF CRIMINAL LAW, New York:Oxford Univ. Press, (2008);
[6]Ewa Bienkowska Crime in Eastern Europe, In Frances Heidensohn, and Martin Farrell. CRIME IN EUROPE. New York:Routledge, (1991);
[7]Hanack, DAS LEGALITUTSPRINZIP UND DIE STRAFRECHSTREFORM, Hanack, Das, in Festschrift Fur Wilhelm Gallas,339(1973);
[8]Hans-Jorg Albret, Post-Adjudication Disposition in Comparative Perspective, in Michael Tonry & Richard S. Frase (eds), SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES, New York:Oxford University Press, (2001);
[9]Minoru Shikita, Shinichi TsuchiyaCRIME AND CRIMINAL POLICY IN JAPAN ANALYSISAND EVOLUTION OF THE SHOWA ERA,1926-1988, New York: Springer-Verlag, (1992);
[10]Israle Drapkin, CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. Massachusetts:Lexington Books, (1989);
[11]Jack Levin & James Alan Fox & David R. Forde, ELEMENTARY STATISTICS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH (12th), Pearson Education Inc.,(2010);
[12]Jorg-Martin Jehle, Dealing with Various Offence Types in Different Criminal Justice Systems-Case Examples, in Jorg-Martin Jehle, Marianne Wade (eds), COPING WITH OVERLOADED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:THE RISE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER ACROSS EUROPE, Heidelberg:Springer, (2006);
[13]Jorg-Martin Jehle, The Function of Public Prosecution within the Criminal Justice System:Aim, Approach and Outcome of a European Comparative Study, in Jorg-Martin Jehle, Marianne Wade (eds), COPING WITH OVERLOADED CRIMINALAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:THE RISE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER ACROSS EUROPE. Heidelberg:Springer, (2006);
[14]M. R. Haberfeld, The Heritage of Police Misconduct:The Case of Polish Police, In Carl B. Klockars Sanja Kutnjak, M. R. Haberfeld (eds), THE CONTOURS OF POLICE INTEGRITY, Thousand Oaks:Sage, (2004);
[15]Michael Tonry, Richard S.Frase (eds), SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES, New York:Oxford Press, (2001);
[16]Minoru Shikita, Shinichi Tsuchiya:CRIME AND CRIMINAL POLICY IN JAPAN: ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE SHOWA ERA,1926-1988, New York: Springer-Verlag, (1992);
[17]Peter J Tak, Sentencing and Punishment in the Netherlands, in Michael Tonry & Richard S. Frase (eds) SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES. New York:Oxford University Press, (2001);
[18]Peter Seago, CRIMINAL LAW. London:Sweet & Maxwell, (1985);
[19]Peter J. Tak, Sentencing and Punishment in The Netherland, in Michael Tonry & Richard S. Frase (eds), SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES. New York:Oxford University Press, (2001);
[20]Rollin Morris Perkins, Ronald N. Boyce, CRIMINAL LAW (3rd), New York: The Foundation Press, (1982);
[21]Teodor Bulenda et al., the Prosecution Service Function Within the Polish Criminal Justice System, in Jorg-Martin Jehle, Marianne Wade (eds), COPING WITH OVERLOADED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:THE RISE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER ACROSS EUROPE, Heidelberg:Springer, (2006);
[22]Thomas Weigend. Sentencing and Punishment in Germany, in Michael Tonry & Richard S. Frase (eds), SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES, New York:Oxford University Press, (2001);
[23]Zamist Ida, FINE IN SENTENCING:AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FINE USE, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT IN NEW YORK CITY COURT. New York: Vera Institute of Justice, (1986).
[1]Alec Samuels, The Fine.41 Journal of Criminal Law,192(1977);
[2]Alice Clapman, Petty offenses, Drastic Consquences:toward A sixth Amendent Right to Counsel for Noncitizen Defendants Facing Deportation, 33:2 Cardozo L. Rev.,585;
[3]Andrew Ashworth, Is The Criminal Law A Lost Cause,116 L. Q. R.225 (Apr 2000);
[4]Ben Best, Causes of Death, http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html;
[5]Bernd Dieter Meier, Alternatives to Imprisonment in the German Criminal Justice System,16:3 Fed. Sent. R.222 (Feb.2004);
[6]Bin Liang, Hong Lu, Conducting Fieldwork in China:Observations on Collecting Primary Data Regarding Crime, Law, and the Criminal Justice System,22:2 J. Contemp. Crim. Just.,157 (2002);
[7]Brent Fisse,The Delegation Principle:Vicarious Liability in Regulatory Offences,10 Crim. L.Q.417(1968);
[8]Bruce J. Ennis, Punitive Damages and The U.S. Constitution,25 Tort & Ins. L. J.587(1989-1990);
[9]Cento Veljanovski, Deterrence, Recidivism and European Cartel Fines, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1758639 (2011);
[10]Cheng Yang, Public Security Offences and Their Impact on Crime Rates in China,34 Brit. J. Criminol.54(1994);
[11]Chris Tollefson, Ideologies Clashing:Corporations, Criminal Law, and The Regulatory Offence,29 Osgoode Hall L. J.705 (1991);
[12]Darryl K. Brown, Can Criminal Law be Controlled? 108 Mich. L. Review, 971 (April 2010);
[13]Darryl K. Brown, Criminal Law's Unfortunate Triumph Over Administrative Law,7:4 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy,658(2011);
[14]Derek A. Westen, Fines, Imprisonment, and the Poor:"Thirty Dollars or Thirty Days",57:3 Cal. L. Rev.778(May,1969);
[15]Diane Burrell, Financial Analysis of Traffic Court Collection in Ada County, Idaho, The Justice System Journal Iss.1,104(1997);
[16]Douglas Husak, Criminal law as Last Resort,24 Oxford Journal of Legal Stud,207 (2004);
[17]Douglas Husak, Reservation about Overcriminalization,14:1New Criminal Law Review:An International and Interdisciplinary Journal,97(2011);
[18]Edmund H. Schwenk, The Administrative Crime, Its Creation and Punishment by Administrative Agencies,42 Mich. L. Rev.51(1943);
[19]Edwin H. Sutherland, Is "White Collar Crime" Crime? 10:2 American Sociological Review,138(1945);
[20]Ekow N. Yankah, A Paradox in Overcriminalization,14:1 New. Crim. L. R.,(2011)；
[21]Gerald E. Songy, The "$30 or 30 Days" Fine as Applied to Indigents,33 La. L. Rev.671(1973);
[22]H. Laurence Ross, Traffic Law Violation:A Folk Crime,8 Social Problem, 2319(1961);
[23]Hans Jorg Albrecht, Recidivism after Fines, Suspended Sentences, and Imprisonment,8 International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice (1984);
[24]Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Aims of The Criminal Law,23 Law & Contemp. Probs.401 (1958);
[25]Inigo Ortiz de Urbina & (UK)Anthony Ogus, Offence Definitions for Cost of Crime Estimation Purposes,15:4 Europ. J. Criminal Pol'y and Res, 343(2009);
[26]Jandhyala B. G. Tilak, Education and Poverty,3 Journal of Human Development,191(2002);
[27]Jeff E. Bulte, Petty Offenses, Serious Consequences:Multiple Petty Offenses and the Sixth Amendment Right to Jury Trial,94 Michigan L. Rev., 872(1995);
[28]Joel Waldfogel, Are Fines and Prison Terms Used Efficiently?—Evidence on Federal Fraud Offenders.38 Journal of Law & Economics,107(1995);
[29]John B. Michell, Kelly Kunsch, Of Driver's Licenses and Debtor s Prison, 4 Seattle J. Soc. Just.,439 (2005);
[30]John C. Coffee, Jr. Hush, The Criminal Status of confidential information after Mcnally and Carpenter and the Enduring Problem of Overcriminalization,2 Am. Crim. L. Rev.121(1988);
[31]Joseph J. Darby, Discussion of Petty Offenses,24 The American Journal of Comparative Law.768(1976);
[32]K. B. Jobson, Fines,16 McGill Law Journal,633(1970);
[33]Katherine Beckett, Alexes Harris, On Cash and Conviction:Monetary Sanctions as Misguided Policy.10 Criminology & Public Policy. Iss.3, 509(2011);
[34]Kirstine Hansen, Education and the Crime—Age Profile,43.141(2003);
[35]Koichi Hamaia, Thomas Ellisb, Crime and Criminal Justice in Modern Japan.From Re-integrative Shaming to Popular Punitivism,34 International Journal of the Sociology of Law,157(2006);
[36]Laura J. Kerrigan, Project:the Decriminalization of Administrative Law Penalties —Civil Remedies, Alternatives, Policy,and Constitutional Implications,45 Administrative Law Review,367(1993);
[37]Margery Heath, The Fine Option Program:An Alternative to Prison for Fine Defaulters,43 Federal Probation (1979);
[38]Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, Mitali Nagrecha, a New Punishment Regime. 10:3 Criminology & Public Policy,555(2011);
[39]Michael Alexeev, Clifford Gaddy, Jim Leitzel, Economic Crime and Russian Reform.151 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics,680(1995);
[40]Mike Hough, Julian Roberts, Sentencing Trend in Britain,7 Punishment & Society,15(1999);
[41]Mikhail Thomas, Adult Criminal Court Statistics 2003/04,24 Canadian Center for Justice Statistics, Catalogue No.85-002, no.12,11(2004):
[42]Ni He, Ineke H. Marshall, Social Production of Crime Data:A Critical Examination of Chinese Crime Statistics,7 Int. Crim. Jus. Rev.46(1997);
[43]Orla St. Clair, The Traffic Problem:The Lawyer's Responsibilities.44 American Bar Association Journal,633(1958);
[44]Pat O'Malley, Fines, Risk, Damages:Money Sanctions and Justice in Control Societies,21 Current Issues in Crime Justice, (2010);
[45]Pat O'Malley, Theorizing Fines,11 Punishment & Society,68(2009);
[46]Paul C. Friday. Sanctioning in Sweden:An Overview,40 Federal Probation. 49(1976);
[47]Paul J. Larkin, Jr, Overcriminalization:The Legislative Side of the Problem,75 Legal Memo.Dec.13,(2011);
[48]Paul Rosenzweig, Overcriminalzation:An Agenda for Change,54 Am. U. L. Rev.809 (2004);
[49]Rebecca Lawton, Dianne Parker etc., the Role of affect in Predicting Social Behaviors:the Case of Road Traffic Violations,27:14 Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1260(2006);
[50]Richard F. Sparks, The Enforcement of Fine-The Process from Sentence to Committal.13 British Journal of Criminology,92(1973);
[51]Richard G Fox, Arie Freiberg, Fines:the Law in Victoria.13Melbourne U. L. Rev.,550(1982);
[52]Richard S. Frase, Sentencing Principles in Theory and Practice,22 Crime & Just,363 (1997);
[53]Rob Widdershove, Encroachment of Criminal law in Administrative law in the Netherlands.6.4Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, http://www.ejcl.org/64/art64-25.html (2002);
[54]Robert D. Crutchfield, Michael R. Geerken, Walter R.Gove, Crime Rate and Social Integration The Impact of Metropolitan Mobilit,20:3 Criminalology,467 (1982);
[55]Robert W. Gillespie, Criminal Fine:Do They Pay?,3 The Justice System Journal,373(1989);
[56]Robert W. Gillespie, Fine as an Alternative to Incarceration:The German Experience. 44 Federal Probation,20(1980);
[57]Roberto Galbiati, Nuno Garoupa. Keeping Stigma Out of Administrative Law:An Explanation of Consistent Beliefs,15:1 Supreme Court Economic Review,273(2007);
[58]Sally T. Hillsman, Barry Mahoney, Collecting and Enforcing Criminal Fines:A Review of Court Processes, Practices, and Problems,13 Just. Sys. J.17(1988);
[59]Sally T. Hillsman, Fine and Day Fine,12 Crime and Justice,89(1990);
[60]Sanford H. Kadish. The Crisis of Overcriminalization,7 Am. Crim. L. Q. 17(1969);
[61]Sanford H. Kadish, More on Overcriminalization:a Reply to Professor Junker.19 UCLA Law Review,719(1972);
[62]Sara Sun Beale,The Many Faces of Overcriminalization:from Morals and Mattress Tags to Overcriminalization.54 Am. U. L. Rev.,747(2005);
[63]Stanley A. Cohen, An Introduction to The Theory, Justifications and Modern Manifestations of Criminal Punishment,27 McGill L. J.73 (1981);
[64]Steve Mihoeran, Stan Lipinski, International Incarceration Patterns 1980-1990,12 Juristat Service Bulletin,12(1992);
[65]Stuart Henrya, Mark M. Lanier, The Prism of Crime:Arguments for An Integrated Definition of Crime,15:4 Justice Quarterly,609 (1998);
[66]Stuart P. Green, Why it's a Crime to Tear the Tag off a Mattress: Overcriminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses.46 Emory Law Journal,1535(1997);
[67]Szott Moohr, Defining Overcriminalization through Cost-Benefit Analysis: the Example of Criminal Copyright Laws,54 Am. U. L. Rev.783 (2005);
[68]Thomas C. Hoemann. Washington's Decriminalization of Minor Traffic offenses—a Summary of the New Law and its Effect on the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction,17 Gonzaga Law Review,609(1982);
[69]Timothy Lynch, Rethink the Petty offence Doctrine,1.4 The Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy,7(1995);
[70]Tomer Einat, Criminal Fine Enforcement in Israel:Administration, Policy, Evaluation and Recommendations,6 Punishment & Society.175(2004);
[71]Victor Tadros, The Architecture of Criminalization,28 Crim. J. E.74 (2009);
[72]Voula Marinos, Equivalency and Inter changeability:The Unexamined Complexities of Reforming The Fine,39 Canadian J. Criminology,27 (1997).
[1]Alan Mackie, John Raine, et al., Clearing the Debts:The Enforcement of Financial Penalties in Magistrates'Courts, Home Office Online Report,(2003);
[2]Alec Spencer, The Crime & Justice in Scotland 2009, Edinburgh:The Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice, (2010);
[3]Anthony N Doob, Voula Marinos, Reconceptualizing Punishment: Understanding the Limitation on the Use of Intermediate Punishments. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable,No.2,417(1995);
[4]Australian Bureau of Statistics, Criminal Courts 2009-2010, Melbourne (2011);
[5]Bundeskriminalamt, Research and Advisory Unit for Crime Prevention in the Bundeskriminalamt. KI 16-Forschungs- und Beratungsstelle Kriminalpravention, Wiesbaden (2010):D-65173.
[6]California Department of Justice, Crime in California in 2009, Sacramento, (2009);
[7]Canada:Solicitor General, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections-Toward Unity:Criminal Justice & Corrections, (1969);
[8]Committee for Justice, Official Report:Fine Default in Northern Ireland, Northen Ireland Assembly, June 23(2011);
[9]Edward C Fisher, People's Court, Evanston:Northwestern University Traffic Institute, (1947);
[10]Federal Ministry of Interior, Federal Ministry of Justice, Second Periodical Report on Crime and Crime Control, Berlin, (2009);
[11]Federal Sentencing Commission, United States Sentencing Commission' s:2009 Annual Report Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. Washington D.C. (2009);
[12]Haruhiko Ukawa, Criminal Justice in Japan. United Nations Asian Far Eastern Institute, (2009):
[13]Henry R. Wray, Restitution, Fines and Forfeiture. Gaithersburg:United States General Accounting Office, (1994);
[14]Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2001 (cm5696), London, (2002);
[15]International Average Salary Income Database, Germany, http://www. worldsalaries.org/germany. shtml;
[16]Jennifer Thomas, Adult Criminal Court Statistics 2008/09, Ottawa: Minister of Industry, Catalogue no.85-002-x, No.2,30 (2010);
[17]Jorg-Martin Jehle, Criminal Justice in Germany (5th), Berlin:Federal Ministry of Justice, (2009);
[18]Statistics Bureau and the Director-General for Policy of Japan, Historical Statistics of Japan, http://www.stat.go.jp/english/index.htm;
[19]Lisa Almqvist, Anthony Beachey, etc., the Official Year Book of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, London:Office of National Statistics, (2005);
[20]Marc Levin, Esq, Overcriminalization:2011-2012 Legislators' Guide to the Issues, Texas Public Policy Foundation, July 8, (2011);
[21]Martin Killias, European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice 2010 Statistics (4th edition). Universite deLausanne & Boom Juridische Uitgevers & Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-en Documentatiecentrum, (2010);
[22]Ministry of Justice, Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1994 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1995);
[23]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1995 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1996);
[24]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1996 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1997);
[25]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1997 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1998);
[26]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1998 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1999);
[27]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1999 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2000);
[28]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2000 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2001);
[29]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2001 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2002);
[30]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2002 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2003);
[31]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2003 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2004);
[32]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2004 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2005);
[33]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2005 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2006);
[34]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2006 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2007);
[35]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2007 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2008);
[36]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2008 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2009);
[37]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2009 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2010);
[38]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2009 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2011);
[39]National Audit Office, Ministry of Justice:Financial Management Report 2011. London, (2011);
[40]National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Final Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Washington:U.S. Government Printing Office, (1971);
[41]National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Crime and Criminal Justice in Finland 2009, National Research Institute of Legal Policy (2010);
[42]Office of Court Administration, Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1993, Austin, (1993);
[43], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1994, Austin, (1994);
[44], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1995, Austin, (1995);
[45], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1996, Austin, (1996);
[46], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1997, Austin, (1997);
[47], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1998, Austin, (1998);
[48], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1999, Austin, (1999);
[49], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2000, Austin, (2000);
[50], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2001, Austin, (2001);
[51], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2002, Austin, (2002);
[52], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2003, Austin, (2003);
[53], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2004, Austin, (2004);
[54], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2005, Austin, (2005);
[55], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2006, Austin, (2006);
[56], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2007, Austin, (2007);
[57], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2008, Austin, (2008);
[58], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2009, Austin, (2009);
[59], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2010, Austin, (2010);
[60]Official Statistics of Finland (OSF):Prosecutions, Sentences and Punishments [e-publication], Helsinki:Statistics Finland, Access method: http://www.stat.fi/til/syyttr/index_en.html;
[61]Rob Widdershove, Encroachment of Criminal law in Administrative law in the Netherlands, http://www.ejcl.org/64/art64-25.html;
[62]Scottish Economic Statistics, Number of Family Units and Persons in each Family Type 2005/06. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007 /07/18083820/71;
[63]Social Condition, Health and Justice, Justice:Persons Guilty in Crimes and National Origin, Statistics Denmark:(2010), Stranafl.http://www.statbank.dk/STRAFNA1;
[64]Statistical Yearbook of Norway 2010, Oslo:Statistics Norway, (2010);
[65]Statistics Canada & Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey:Number of Guilty Cases by Type of Sentence (1994/95-2008/09) [computer file]. Ottawa, Ont.:Statistics Canada, (2010);
[66]Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland, Defendants Adjudicated DefendantsConvicted,http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/des tatis/Internet/EN/content/Statistics/Justice/CriminalProsecution/Content7 5/Defendants AdjudicatedConvictedInfo.psml;
[67]Statistics Canada, Canada Year Book 2010, Ottawa, Ont.:Minister of industry, (2010), NO.11-402-XPE;
[68]Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 252-0046 and Catalogue no. 85-002-X.Last modified:May 4(2011);
[69]Statistics Netherland, Statistical Yearbook 2011, Haug (2011);
[70]Statistisches Bundesamt Reihe 3.1991.Rechtspflege:Strafverfolgung 1996. Stuttgart:Metzler Poeschel, (1997);
[71]Steve Moffatt, Suzanne Poynton, The Deterrent Effect of Higher Fines on Recidivism:Driving offences, Crime and Justice Bulletin,No.106, (2007);
[72]Supreme Court of Japan, Outline of Criminal Justice in Japan, http://www.courts.go.jp/english/proceedings/criminal_justice.html;
[73]The Federal Statistical Office,2006 Conviction Statistics, in Jorg-Martin Jehle Criminal Justice in Germany (5th), Berlin:Federal Ministry of Justice, (2009);
[74]The Scottish Government, Statistical Bulletin Crime and Justice Series, Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts 2006/2007, Edinburgh, (2008);
[75]Statistical Bulletin Crime and Justice Series, Crimin al Proceedings in Scottish Courts 2007/2008, Edinburgh, (2009);
[76]Statistical Bulletin Crime and Justice Series, Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts 2008/2009, Edinburgh, (2010);
[77]The Scottish Government, Statistical Bulletin:Criminal Proceedings in Scotland 2009-2010,Edinburgh:(2011);
[78]The Spangenberg Project, An Update on State Efforts in Misdemeanor Reclassification, Penalty Reduction and Alternative Sentencing, The Center for Justice, Law and Society at George Mason University The American Bar Association,Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, (Sept.2010);
[79]United States Sentencing Commission, Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (1996), Washington D.C., (1997);
[80]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (1997), Washington D.C., (1998);
[81]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (1998), Washington D.C., (1999);
[82]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (1999), Washington D.C., (2000);
[83]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2000), Washington D.C., (2001);
[84]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2001), Washington D.C., (2002);
[85]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2002), Washington D.C., (2003);
[86]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2003), Washington D.C., (2004);
[87]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2004), Washington D.C., (2005);
[88]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2005), Washington D.C., (2006);
[89]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2006), Washington D.C., (2007);
[90]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2007), Washington D.C., (2008);
[91]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2008), Washington D.C., (2009);
[92]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2009), Washington D.C., (2010);
[93]U. S.'Federal Sentencing Commission,2010 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, (2010);
[94]U.S Census Bureau, Texas, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000. html:
[95]Wendy Searle, Court-Imposed Fines:A Survey of Judges, Wellington: Ministry of Justice (2003);
[96]Zamist Ida, Fine in Sentencing:An Empirical Study of Fine Use, Collection and Enforcement in New York City Court. New York:Vera Institute of Justice, (1986).
[1]Arizona:Arizona Penal Code;
[2]Australia:New South Wales, Fines Act 1996, No.2;
[3]Australia:Queesland Summary Offences Act 2005;
[4]California:Penal Code of California;
[5]Canada:Criminal Code of Canada;
[6]Finland:Finland Penal Code;
[7]France:France Penal Code;
[8]Rusia:Code of Administrative Offence of Russian Federation;
[9]Unite States Federal:Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
② 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期：马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。
③ 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期;马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。 03期。
② 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期；马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。
③ 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期；马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期。
④ 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期；马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年
① 何鹏：《资产阶级国家罚金的改革》,《国外法学》1984年04期。
② (日)菊田幸一：《犯罪学》,成文堂1978年,第380页。
③ 何鹏：《资产阶级国家罚金的改革》,《国外法学》1984年04期。
① 周晖国：《论罚金刑》,《中国法学》1984年04期。
① 周晖国：《论罚金刑》,《中国法学》1984年04期。
② 周晖国：《论罚金刑》,《中国法学》1984年04期。
③ 笔者在阅读早期论文时发现,1985-1989年期间发表的研究论文未见引注,也未见做任何文献综述。
④ 张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
① 张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
② 张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
③ 张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
① 赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年02期(日本从1973年到1977年罚金适用率达到96%……我国应当扩大罚金刑适用范围,将罚金刑扩大到财产犯罪、贪利性犯罪、过失性犯罪、故意犯罪中)；邓修明：《罚金刑的地位与适用范围》,《法学杂志》1989年02期(日本从1964年至1968年罚金适用率最低年份也是97.2%,英国1968年罚金适用占90%案件以上,西德1969年罚金适用率达到70%以上,甚至有的年份达到84%……我国应扩大罚金刑适用范围并且我国不区分主刑和附加刑)；李洁：《罚金刑应当上升为主刑论》,《当代法学》1989年03期(我国罚金刑作为附加刑过于封闭,不适于市场经济发展需求,与国际发展趋势不相适应……罚金刑可以适用于大多数犯罪……扩大罚金刑适用范围是必然要求)。
② 赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年02期。
① 邓又天,邓修明：《略论罚金刑的地位及其适用》,《法律科学》1989年04期。
② 马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期;马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年03期；张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
③ 熊选国：《论罚金刑的立法完善》,载《政治与法律》1989年第4期：赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年02期：张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期。
④ 赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年02期；张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期：熊选国：《论罚金刑的立法完善》,载《政治与法律》1989年第4期。
⑤ 何鹏教授第一次引用数据时明确说明外国刑事司法中的罚金绝大部分适用在交通犯罪上,文章中无任何倾向性表述我国应当扩大罚金刑。但是1985年—89年发表的论文中均未见到有任何信息提示外国罚金主要适用于交通违法,而且也并未发现有数据支撑扩大罚金刑立法。直到1991年张明楷教授发表
① 何鹏：《资产阶级罚金刑的改革》,《国外法学》1984年4期(“如英国的治安审判法院在其全部犯人中岁17以上21岁以下被处罚金刑的,1938年为18%,1956年为47%；21岁被判处罚金刑的1938年为32%,1956年达55%(1975年达88%),无论是总数还是比例数都在逐年增加。在联邦德国,罚金刑在全部刑罚中,1882年为25%,1912年为51.8%,1955年为70%,也是年年增加的。在日本,1950年罚金刑为确定判决总数的95.8%,其中大部分是违反道路交通法案件(即‘行政犯’))；石红卫：《罚金刑探析》,《河北法学》2001年第5期(“1959年联邦德国有63%的刑事案件判处罚金,1969年上升为70%,70年代以后,上升为84%左右”……“在日本,1971年至1975年,法院适用罚金占刑事判决总数的96%以上”)；鲜铁可： 《论我国刑法中的罚金刑的立法完善》, 《法商研究》1995年06期(“英国除谋杀罪外,几乎所有的犯罪都适用罚金,1977年英国的治安法院大约97%的刑事案件由这些法院作出裁决……在非交通案件中,有74%是判处罚金的,即使是在打击严重犯罪进行审判的皇家刑事法院有15%的案件也是采用罚金刑”)：邓又天,邓修明：《略论罚金刑的地位及其适用》,《法律科学》1989年04期(日本1964到1968年五年间,最高的比例年度,罚金刑占短期刑判决总数的97.2%。英国1968年判处罚金刑的案件占全部案件总数的90%以上。西德1967年判处罚金刑的占全部案件的62%”)
① Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2001 (cm5696),London,86(2002)..
② Mike Hough & Julian Roberts, Sentencing Trend in Britain,7 Punishment & Society,15(1999),.
③ Mikhail Thomas, Adult Criminal Court Statistics 2003/04,24:12 Canadian Center for Justice Statistics, Catalogue No.85-00211(2004)..
④ Henry R. Wray, Restitution, Fines and Forfeiture,Gaithersburg:United States General Accounting Office, 2(1994)..
⑤ Robert W. Gillespie, Criminal Fine:Do They Pay?.13 The Justice System Journal,373(1989).
⑥ Joel Waldfogel, Are Fines and Prison Terms Used Efficiently? —Evidence on Federal Fraud Offenders,^ Journal of Law & Economics,107(1995).
⑦ National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Final Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Washington:U.S. Government Printing Office,296(1971)..
[1]冯亚东：《理性主义与刑法模式》,中国政法大学出版社,1999年版；
[2]高铭暄,赵秉志：《刑法总论比较研究》,北京大学出版社2008年版；
[3]菊田幸一：《犯罪学》,成文堂,1978年；
[4]张明楷：《外国刑法刚要》(第二版),清华大学出版社2007年版；
[5]马克昌：《比较刑法原理》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[1]储槐植,汪永乐：《再论我国刑法中犯罪概念的定量因素》,《法学研究》2000年2期；
[2]丛梅：《当前犯罪主体的性别特征分析》,《理论与现代化》2008年04期；
[3]重庆一中院课题组：《财产刑执行的调查报告》,《西南政法大学学报》,2004年第5期；
[4]邓文莉：《罚金刑配置地位及范围探讨》,《法学杂志》2008年05期；
[5]邓修明：《罚金刑的地位与适用范围》,《法学杂志》1989年02期；
[6]邓又天,邓修明：《略论罚金刑的地位及其适用》,《法律科学》1989年04期；
[7]杜雪明,陈辉：《加强对未成年犯适用罚金刑的限制》,《人民司法》2002年6期；
[8]费贵廉,曾岚：《扩大适用罚金刑需要解决的问题》,《法学杂志》2000年02期；
[9]冯亚东：《犯罪概念与犯罪客体之功能辨析——以司法客观过程视角的分析》,《中外法学》2008年6期：
[10]冯亚东：《罪刑关系的反思与重构——兼谈罚金刑在中国现阶段之适用》,《中国 社会科学》2006年2期；
[11]高铭暄,孙晓：《宽严相济刑事政策与罚金刑改革》,《法学论坛》2010年2期；
[12]宫厚军：《刍议我国罚金刑执行之完善》,《法学论坛》2006年4期；
[13]韩轶：《对必并制罚金的思考》,《法商研究》2000年05期；
[14]何鹏：《资产阶级国家的刑法改革》,《国外法学》1984年04期；
[15]纪素华：《从经济分析角度论述我国罚金刑的完善》,《人民检察》2002年5期：
[16]江海澜：《谈谈罚金刑的完善——来自司法实践的建议》,《法律适用》1995年5期；
[17]姜公臣,贺新,王哲：《罚金刑适用之瑕疵与立法完善》,《人民检察》2007年20期；
[18]姜国旺,王晨：《罚金困境与出路》,《人民司法》1999年7期；
[19]金川：《建议设立易科罚金刑制度》,《法律适用》2005年7期；
[20]黎宏：《日本近现代刑法学的发展历程及其借鉴意义》,《法学评论》2004年5期；
[21]李超,张凤杰：《预收罚金危害严重》,《人民检察》2001年03期；
[22]李贵方：《罚金易科自由刑比较研究》,《中国法学》1992年01期；
[23]李洁：《罚金刑应当上升为主刑论》,《当代法学》1989年03期；
[24]李洁：《论犯罪定量因素立法化对法定刑模式的要求——以抢劫罪为实例的研究》,《当代法学》2008年3期；
[25]李居全：《也论我国刑法中的犯罪概念的定量因素——与储槐植教授和汪永乐博士商榷》,《法律科学》2001年1期；
[26]李中和：《略论罚金刑的适用》,《法学家》1992年04期；
[27]李忠诚：《罪犯不交清罚金不应阻却自由刑的减刑——兼谈罚金刑执行的对策》,2005年2期；
[28]刘彩灵：《罚金刑执行的困境和出路》,《法律适用》2005年8期；
[29]刘明祥：《论解决罚金刑执行难的立法途径》,《法学家》2009年2期；
[30]刘生荣：《罚金刑的比较研究》,《法学评论》1992年05期；
[31]刘文昌：《对义务兵适用罚金刑的探讨》,《中国刑事法》,1999年05期；
[32]马克昌：《罚金比较研究》,《法学评论》1981年01期；
[33]马克昌：《略论罚金》,《现代法学》1981年3期；
[34]齐文远,王安异：《试论罚金刑的效率》,《法学杂志》1998年4期；
[35]钱叶六：《论中国罚金刑的改革和完善——以探寻罚金刑执行难之解决方案为视 角》,《法学论坛》2005年4期：
[36]邱景辉：《罚金刑执行与监督若干问题研究》,《人民检察》2004年2期：
[37]石红卫：《罚金刑探析》,《河北法学》2001年05期；
[38]史有勇：《以罚金刑逐步取代短期自由刑议》,《法学》1991年1期：
[39]孙秋杰：《论市场经济条件下罚金刑的完善》,《甘肃政法学院学报》1996年1期；
[40]孙喜峰：《对未成年犯罪人适用罚金刑的思考》,《当代法学》2003年5期；
[41]田幸,茅仲华,叶巍：《关于财产刑适用与执行问题的调研报告》,《中国刑事法杂志》2005年3期；
[42]汪红飞：《罚金刑适用范围之立法评析》,《中国刑事法杂志》2002年4期；
[43]王斌：《完善罚金刑的对策》,《法学》2000年02期；
[44]王建生：《扩大适用罚金刑的弊端和对策》,《人民检察》,2008年19期；
[45]王世洲：《罪与非罪的理论与实践——关于德国违反秩序法的几点考察》,《比较法研究》2000年第2期；
[46]王政勋：《定量因素在犯罪成立条件中的地位——兼论犯罪构成体系的完善》,《政法论坛》2007年4期：
[47]吴常青：《对预交罚金做法的反思》,《法学》2010年3期；
[48]吴平：《预交罚金的做法不可取》,《法学杂志》2000年6期；
[49]吴献萍：《罚金刑在环境犯罪中的适用》,《法学杂志》2009年7期；
[50]鲜铁可：《论我国刑法中的罚金刑的立法完善》,《法商研究》1995年6；
[51]熊谋林,陈树娇,《外国罚金刑实证分析：规范借鉴与罚金刑重构》,《光华法学》第6辑,北京：法律出版社,2012年,第106-128页。
[52]熊选国：《论罚金刑的立法完善》,载《政治与法律》1989年4期；
[53]徐莉,黄祥坤：《主动预缴罚金不宜酌情从轻处罚》,《人民检察》2005年05期；
[54]徐章晓盛黎丽：《不宜对未成年人适用罚金》,《人民检察》2003年3期；
[55]杨迪善：《罚金适用中的问题》,《人民司法》1998年10期；
[56]杨方泉：《市场经济条件下应当重视罚金刑的作用》,《现代法学》1995年1期；
[57]杨光,斐维奇等：《建议对未成年犯以“社会服务”代替罚金刑》,《人民检察》2001年12期；
[58]杨均顺：《完善与发展我国罚金刑的思考》,《甘肃政法学院学报》1994年第2期；
[59]一啸：《罚金岂能预交》,《人民检察》1999年11期；
[60]应秀良,《以罚金作为减刑条件的思考》,《法律适用》2007年1期；
[61]于志刚：《关于罚金刑易科制度的批判性思考》,《法学评论》2008年04期；
[62]张明楷：《罚金刑若干问题的再思考》,《中国法学》1991年第4期；
[63]张旭：《罚金刑刍议》,《河北法学》1987年03期：
[64]赵国强：《关于完善我国罚金刑适用范围的研究》,《法学家》1989年2期；
[65]赵廷光：《关于罚金刑替代短期自由刑的可行性研究》,《中外法学》1995年2期；
[66]赵震陆红卫：《浅论罚金刑执行难的解决路径》,《法学杂志》2010年第6期；
[67]钟书峰：《论我国罚金刑的特点及立法完善》,《现代法学》1993年5期：
[68]周光富：《罚金刑执行难之客服》,《政治与法律》2003年06期；
[69]周晖国：《论罚金刑》,《中国法学》1985年04期；
[70]朱旭伟：《罚金执行难的成因和对策》,《现代法学》,1998年4期；
[71]左庆龙：《浅谈我国刑法中的罚金刑》,《河北法学》1999年2期。
[1]崔文修,《关于郑州市金水区2010年国民经济和社会发展计划执行情况及2011年国民经济和社会发展计划(草案)的报告》,郑州金水区发展改革和统计局,2011年4月16日http://www.jinshui.gov.cn/fzggtjj/zwgk/tjfx/webinfo/ 2011/04/1302051783190754.htm；
[2]上海市浦东区统计局：《上海浦东区年鉴2011》,北京：中国统计出版社,2011年版。
[3]上海统计局&国家统计局上海调查总队：《2010年上海市国民经济和社会发展统计公报》,2011年3月3日,载http://www.stats-sh.gov.cn/sjfb/201103/82123.html.
[1]代万旭：《预收保证金——落实罚金刑的可选路径》,《人民法院报》,2008年3月23日http://oldfyb2009..chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=117845；
[2]潘伟明：《缴纳罚金减轻主刑的法理思辨——论以罚抵刑的正当性和合理限制》,武冈市法院网,2010年12月19日http://wgsfy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=327；
[3]全国法院学术讨论委员会组织办公室：《关于公布全国法院第二十一界学术讨论会论文评审结果的通知》,北京：最高人民法院,2009年12月18日；
[4]邓红阳：《公开“晾晒”接受社会监督擅自改动追究法官责任—河南三级法院判决书年内全上网》,法制网,2009年1月11日http://www.legaldaily.com.cn/bm /content/2009-01/12/content_1017468.htm;
[5]东方网：《三人抢劫物品仅值一元被判徒刑并处万元罚金》,2003年3月26日http://news.eastday.com/epublish/gb/Paper148/20031026/class0148000 12/hwz1032680.htm；
[6]佛山市中级人民法院课题组：《关于财产刑执行的调研报告》,广东法院网2009年1月9日http://www.gdcourts.gov.cn/sfdc/t20090108_21335.htm；
[7]黑龙江海伦法院：《只因抢劫一元钱辍学少年被判刑》,中国检察网2011年6月28日http://www.cnjccn.net/news74113.html；
[8]人民网：《上海法院网公开上万份裁判文书以接受社会监督》2006年12月11日http://news.people.com.cn/GB/71648/71653/5153091.html；
[9]师佩军刘红辉：《鲁莽少年抢劫一元钱,不料获刑一年罚五千》,河南高院http://hnfy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=120042；
[10]肖明俊：《财产刑执行问题及其对策研究》,邵阳市中级人民法院网：2009年12月18日http://hnsyzy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=1418；
[11]新华网：《男子抢劫1元钱被判6年生不如死逃亡19年终自首》,2011年4月28日http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2011-04/28/c_12135941.htm；
[12]杨继诗,潘伟：《罚金刑执行难及对策思考》,云南法院网2011年4月8日http://www.gy.yn.gov.cn/Article/spyf/dyq2010/zwxd/201104/22541.html；
[13]詹耘：《要看判决书上网查—成都高新法院率先推行判决书上网制度》,四川法制报,2008年4月17日http://legal.scol.com.cn/2008/04；
[14]中国新闻网：《江苏男子抢劫1元潜逃10余年被判刑10年罚款1万》,2011年10月9日http://www.chinanews.com/fz/2011/10-09/3375592.shtml.
[1]上海市高级人民法院《关于刑事判决中财产刑及财产部分执行的若干意见(试行)》,第19号,2006年；
[2]江苏省高级人民法院：《关于适用与执行财产刑若干问题的意见》；
[3]浙江省高级人民法院：《关于刑事财产刑执行若干问题纪要》；
[4]最高人民法院《关于财产刑执行问题的若干规定》法释(2010)4号；
[5]最高人民法院《关于审理盗窃案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》法释(1998)4号；
[6]最高人民法院《关于适用财产刑若干问题的规定》法释[2000]45号。
[1]Adophe Quetele, RESEARCH ON THE PROPENSITY FOR CRIME AT DIFFERENT AGES (1831a), Translated and Introduced by Sawyer F Sylvester, Cincinnati: Anderson, (1984);
[2]Barbara Wootton, SOCIAL SCIENCE AND SOCIAL PATHOLOGY. London: Geroge Allen and Unwin Ltd, (1959);
[3]Bruno Aubusson de Cavarley, et.al, Dealing with Various Offence Types in Different Criminal Justice Systems - Case Examples, in Jorg-Martin Jehle, Marianne Wade (eds), COPING WITH OVERLOADED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:THE RISE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER ACROSS EUROPE. Heidelberg:Springer, (2006);
[4]David W. Brown, FIGHT YOUR TICKET & WIN IN CALIFORNIA, Berkeley: Nolo Press, (2007);
[5]Douglas Husak, OVERCRIMINALIZATION:THE LIMITS OF CRIMINAL LAW, New York:Oxford Univ. Press, (2008);
[6]Ewa Bienkowska Crime in Eastern Europe, In Frances Heidensohn, and Martin Farrell. CRIME IN EUROPE. New York:Routledge, (1991);
[7]Hanack, DAS LEGALITUTSPRINZIP UND DIE STRAFRECHSTREFORM, Hanack, Das, in Festschrift Fur Wilhelm Gallas,339(1973);
[8]Hans-Jorg Albret, Post-Adjudication Disposition in Comparative Perspective, in Michael Tonry & Richard S. Frase (eds), SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES, New York:Oxford University Press, (2001);
[9]Minoru Shikita, Shinichi TsuchiyaCRIME AND CRIMINAL POLICY IN JAPAN ANALYSISAND EVOLUTION OF THE SHOWA ERA,1926-1988, New York: Springer-Verlag, (1992);
[10]Israle Drapkin, CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. Massachusetts:Lexington Books, (1989);
[11]Jack Levin & James Alan Fox & David R. Forde, ELEMENTARY STATISTICS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH (12th), Pearson Education Inc.,(2010);
[12]Jorg-Martin Jehle, Dealing with Various Offence Types in Different Criminal Justice Systems-Case Examples, in Jorg-Martin Jehle, Marianne Wade (eds), COPING WITH OVERLOADED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:THE RISE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER ACROSS EUROPE, Heidelberg:Springer, (2006);
[13]Jorg-Martin Jehle, The Function of Public Prosecution within the Criminal Justice System:Aim, Approach and Outcome of a European Comparative Study, in Jorg-Martin Jehle, Marianne Wade (eds), COPING WITH OVERLOADED CRIMINALAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:THE RISE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER ACROSS EUROPE. Heidelberg:Springer, (2006);
[14]M. R. Haberfeld, The Heritage of Police Misconduct:The Case of Polish Police, In Carl B. Klockars Sanja Kutnjak, M. R. Haberfeld (eds), THE CONTOURS OF POLICE INTEGRITY, Thousand Oaks:Sage, (2004);
[15]Michael Tonry, Richard S.Frase (eds), SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES, New York:Oxford Press, (2001);
[16]Minoru Shikita, Shinichi Tsuchiya:CRIME AND CRIMINAL POLICY IN JAPAN: ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE SHOWA ERA,1926-1988, New York: Springer-Verlag, (1992);
[17]Peter J Tak, Sentencing and Punishment in the Netherlands, in Michael Tonry & Richard S. Frase (eds) SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES. New York:Oxford University Press, (2001);
[18]Peter Seago, CRIMINAL LAW. London:Sweet & Maxwell, (1985);
[19]Peter J. Tak, Sentencing and Punishment in The Netherland, in Michael Tonry & Richard S. Frase (eds), SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES. New York:Oxford University Press, (2001);
[20]Rollin Morris Perkins, Ronald N. Boyce, CRIMINAL LAW (3rd), New York: The Foundation Press, (1982);
[21]Teodor Bulenda et al., the Prosecution Service Function Within the Polish Criminal Justice System, in Jorg-Martin Jehle, Marianne Wade (eds), COPING WITH OVERLOADED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:THE RISE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER ACROSS EUROPE, Heidelberg:Springer, (2006);
[22]Thomas Weigend. Sentencing and Punishment in Germany, in Michael Tonry & Richard S. Frase (eds), SENTENCING AND SANCTIONS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES, New York:Oxford University Press, (2001);
[23]Zamist Ida, FINE IN SENTENCING:AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FINE USE, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT IN NEW YORK CITY COURT. New York: Vera Institute of Justice, (1986).
[1]Alec Samuels, The Fine.41 Journal of Criminal Law,192(1977);
[2]Alice Clapman, Petty offenses, Drastic Consquences:toward A sixth Amendent Right to Counsel for Noncitizen Defendants Facing Deportation, 33:2 Cardozo L. Rev.,585;
[3]Andrew Ashworth, Is The Criminal Law A Lost Cause,116 L. Q. R.225 (Apr 2000);
[4]Ben Best, Causes of Death, http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html;
[5]Bernd Dieter Meier, Alternatives to Imprisonment in the German Criminal Justice System,16:3 Fed. Sent. R.222 (Feb.2004);
[6]Bin Liang, Hong Lu, Conducting Fieldwork in China:Observations on Collecting Primary Data Regarding Crime, Law, and the Criminal Justice System,22:2 J. Contemp. Crim. Just.,157 (2002);
[7]Brent Fisse,The Delegation Principle:Vicarious Liability in Regulatory Offences,10 Crim. L.Q.417(1968);
[8]Bruce J. Ennis, Punitive Damages and The U.S. Constitution,25 Tort & Ins. L. J.587(1989-1990);
[9]Cento Veljanovski, Deterrence, Recidivism and European Cartel Fines, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1758639 (2011);
[10]Cheng Yang, Public Security Offences and Their Impact on Crime Rates in China,34 Brit. J. Criminol.54(1994);
[11]Chris Tollefson, Ideologies Clashing:Corporations, Criminal Law, and The Regulatory Offence,29 Osgoode Hall L. J.705 (1991);
[12]Darryl K. Brown, Can Criminal Law be Controlled? 108 Mich. L. Review, 971 (April 2010);
[13]Darryl K. Brown, Criminal Law's Unfortunate Triumph Over Administrative Law,7:4 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy,658(2011);
[14]Derek A. Westen, Fines, Imprisonment, and the Poor:"Thirty Dollars or Thirty Days",57:3 Cal. L. Rev.778(May,1969);
[15]Diane Burrell, Financial Analysis of Traffic Court Collection in Ada County, Idaho, The Justice System Journal Iss.1,104(1997);
[16]Douglas Husak, Criminal law as Last Resort,24 Oxford Journal of Legal Stud,207 (2004);
[17]Douglas Husak, Reservation about Overcriminalization,14:1New Criminal Law Review:An International and Interdisciplinary Journal,97(2011);
[18]Edmund H. Schwenk, The Administrative Crime, Its Creation and Punishment by Administrative Agencies,42 Mich. L. Rev.51(1943);
[19]Edwin H. Sutherland, Is "White Collar Crime" Crime? 10:2 American Sociological Review,138(1945);
[20]Ekow N. Yankah, A Paradox in Overcriminalization,14:1 New. Crim. L. R.,(2011)；
[21]Gerald E. Songy, The "$30 or 30 Days" Fine as Applied to Indigents,33 La. L. Rev.671(1973);
[22]H. Laurence Ross, Traffic Law Violation:A Folk Crime,8 Social Problem, 2319(1961);
[23]Hans Jorg Albrecht, Recidivism after Fines, Suspended Sentences, and Imprisonment,8 International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice (1984);
[24]Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Aims of The Criminal Law,23 Law & Contemp. Probs.401 (1958);
[25]Inigo Ortiz de Urbina & (UK)Anthony Ogus, Offence Definitions for Cost of Crime Estimation Purposes,15:4 Europ. J. Criminal Pol'y and Res, 343(2009);
[26]Jandhyala B. G. Tilak, Education and Poverty,3 Journal of Human Development,191(2002);
[27]Jeff E. Bulte, Petty Offenses, Serious Consequences:Multiple Petty Offenses and the Sixth Amendment Right to Jury Trial,94 Michigan L. Rev., 872(1995);
[28]Joel Waldfogel, Are Fines and Prison Terms Used Efficiently?—Evidence on Federal Fraud Offenders.38 Journal of Law & Economics,107(1995);
[29]John B. Michell, Kelly Kunsch, Of Driver's Licenses and Debtor s Prison, 4 Seattle J. Soc. Just.,439 (2005);
[30]John C. Coffee, Jr. Hush, The Criminal Status of confidential information after Mcnally and Carpenter and the Enduring Problem of Overcriminalization,2 Am. Crim. L. Rev.121(1988);
[31]Joseph J. Darby, Discussion of Petty Offenses,24 The American Journal of Comparative Law.768(1976);
[32]K. B. Jobson, Fines,16 McGill Law Journal,633(1970);
[33]Katherine Beckett, Alexes Harris, On Cash and Conviction:Monetary Sanctions as Misguided Policy.10 Criminology & Public Policy. Iss.3, 509(2011);
[34]Kirstine Hansen, Education and the Crime—Age Profile,43.141(2003);
[35]Koichi Hamaia, Thomas Ellisb, Crime and Criminal Justice in Modern Japan.From Re-integrative Shaming to Popular Punitivism,34 International Journal of the Sociology of Law,157(2006);
[36]Laura J. Kerrigan, Project:the Decriminalization of Administrative Law Penalties —Civil Remedies, Alternatives, Policy,and Constitutional Implications,45 Administrative Law Review,367(1993);
[37]Margery Heath, The Fine Option Program:An Alternative to Prison for Fine Defaulters,43 Federal Probation (1979);
[38]Mary Fainsod Katzenstein, Mitali Nagrecha, a New Punishment Regime. 10:3 Criminology & Public Policy,555(2011);
[39]Michael Alexeev, Clifford Gaddy, Jim Leitzel, Economic Crime and Russian Reform.151 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics,680(1995);
[40]Mike Hough, Julian Roberts, Sentencing Trend in Britain,7 Punishment & Society,15(1999);
[41]Mikhail Thomas, Adult Criminal Court Statistics 2003/04,24 Canadian Center for Justice Statistics, Catalogue No.85-002, no.12,11(2004):
[42]Ni He, Ineke H. Marshall, Social Production of Crime Data:A Critical Examination of Chinese Crime Statistics,7 Int. Crim. Jus. Rev.46(1997);
[43]Orla St. Clair, The Traffic Problem:The Lawyer's Responsibilities.44 American Bar Association Journal,633(1958);
[44]Pat O'Malley, Fines, Risk, Damages:Money Sanctions and Justice in Control Societies,21 Current Issues in Crime Justice, (2010);
[45]Pat O'Malley, Theorizing Fines,11 Punishment & Society,68(2009);
[46]Paul C. Friday. Sanctioning in Sweden:An Overview,40 Federal Probation. 49(1976);
[47]Paul J. Larkin, Jr, Overcriminalization:The Legislative Side of the Problem,75 Legal Memo.Dec.13,(2011);
[48]Paul Rosenzweig, Overcriminalzation:An Agenda for Change,54 Am. U. L. Rev.809 (2004);
[49]Rebecca Lawton, Dianne Parker etc., the Role of affect in Predicting Social Behaviors:the Case of Road Traffic Violations,27:14 Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1260(2006);
[50]Richard F. Sparks, The Enforcement of Fine-The Process from Sentence to Committal.13 British Journal of Criminology,92(1973);
[51]Richard G Fox, Arie Freiberg, Fines:the Law in Victoria.13Melbourne U. L. Rev.,550(1982);
[52]Richard S. Frase, Sentencing Principles in Theory and Practice,22 Crime & Just,363 (1997);
[53]Rob Widdershove, Encroachment of Criminal law in Administrative law in the Netherlands.6.4Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, http://www.ejcl.org/64/art64-25.html (2002);
[54]Robert D. Crutchfield, Michael R. Geerken, Walter R.Gove, Crime Rate and Social Integration The Impact of Metropolitan Mobilit,20:3 Criminalology,467 (1982);
[55]Robert W. Gillespie, Criminal Fine:Do They Pay?,3 The Justice System Journal,373(1989);
[56]Robert W. Gillespie, Fine as an Alternative to Incarceration:The German Experience. 44 Federal Probation,20(1980);
[57]Roberto Galbiati, Nuno Garoupa. Keeping Stigma Out of Administrative Law:An Explanation of Consistent Beliefs,15:1 Supreme Court Economic Review,273(2007);
[58]Sally T. Hillsman, Barry Mahoney, Collecting and Enforcing Criminal Fines:A Review of Court Processes, Practices, and Problems,13 Just. Sys. J.17(1988);
[59]Sally T. Hillsman, Fine and Day Fine,12 Crime and Justice,89(1990);
[60]Sanford H. Kadish. The Crisis of Overcriminalization,7 Am. Crim. L. Q. 17(1969);
[61]Sanford H. Kadish, More on Overcriminalization:a Reply to Professor Junker.19 UCLA Law Review,719(1972);
[62]Sara Sun Beale,The Many Faces of Overcriminalization:from Morals and Mattress Tags to Overcriminalization.54 Am. U. L. Rev.,747(2005);
[63]Stanley A. Cohen, An Introduction to The Theory, Justifications and Modern Manifestations of Criminal Punishment,27 McGill L. J.73 (1981);
[64]Steve Mihoeran, Stan Lipinski, International Incarceration Patterns 1980-1990,12 Juristat Service Bulletin,12(1992);
[65]Stuart Henrya, Mark M. Lanier, The Prism of Crime:Arguments for An Integrated Definition of Crime,15:4 Justice Quarterly,609 (1998);
[66]Stuart P. Green, Why it's a Crime to Tear the Tag off a Mattress: Overcriminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses.46 Emory Law Journal,1535(1997);
[67]Szott Moohr, Defining Overcriminalization through Cost-Benefit Analysis: the Example of Criminal Copyright Laws,54 Am. U. L. Rev.783 (2005);
[68]Thomas C. Hoemann. Washington's Decriminalization of Minor Traffic offenses—a Summary of the New Law and its Effect on the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction,17 Gonzaga Law Review,609(1982);
[69]Timothy Lynch, Rethink the Petty offence Doctrine,1.4 The Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy,7(1995);
[70]Tomer Einat, Criminal Fine Enforcement in Israel:Administration, Policy, Evaluation and Recommendations,6 Punishment & Society.175(2004);
[71]Victor Tadros, The Architecture of Criminalization,28 Crim. J. E.74 (2009);
[72]Voula Marinos, Equivalency and Inter changeability:The Unexamined Complexities of Reforming The Fine,39 Canadian J. Criminology,27 (1997).
[1]Alan Mackie, John Raine, et al., Clearing the Debts:The Enforcement of Financial Penalties in Magistrates'Courts, Home Office Online Report,(2003);
[2]Alec Spencer, The Crime & Justice in Scotland 2009, Edinburgh:The Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice, (2010);
[3]Anthony N Doob, Voula Marinos, Reconceptualizing Punishment: Understanding the Limitation on the Use of Intermediate Punishments. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable,No.2,417(1995);
[4]Australian Bureau of Statistics, Criminal Courts 2009-2010, Melbourne (2011);
[5]Bundeskriminalamt, Research and Advisory Unit for Crime Prevention in the Bundeskriminalamt. KI 16-Forschungs- und Beratungsstelle Kriminalpravention, Wiesbaden (2010):D-65173.
[6]California Department of Justice, Crime in California in 2009, Sacramento, (2009);
[7]Canada:Solicitor General, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections-Toward Unity:Criminal Justice & Corrections, (1969);
[8]Committee for Justice, Official Report:Fine Default in Northern Ireland, Northen Ireland Assembly, June 23(2011);
[9]Edward C Fisher, People's Court, Evanston:Northwestern University Traffic Institute, (1947);
[10]Federal Ministry of Interior, Federal Ministry of Justice, Second Periodical Report on Crime and Crime Control, Berlin, (2009);
[11]Federal Sentencing Commission, United States Sentencing Commission' s:2009 Annual Report Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. Washington D.C. (2009);
[12]Haruhiko Ukawa, Criminal Justice in Japan. United Nations Asian Far Eastern Institute, (2009):
[13]Henry R. Wray, Restitution, Fines and Forfeiture. Gaithersburg:United States General Accounting Office, (1994);
[14]Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2001 (cm5696), London, (2002);
[15]International Average Salary Income Database, Germany, http://www. worldsalaries.org/germany. shtml;
[16]Jennifer Thomas, Adult Criminal Court Statistics 2008/09, Ottawa: Minister of Industry, Catalogue no.85-002-x, No.2,30 (2010);
[17]Jorg-Martin Jehle, Criminal Justice in Germany (5th), Berlin:Federal Ministry of Justice, (2009);
[18]Statistics Bureau and the Director-General for Policy of Japan, Historical Statistics of Japan, http://www.stat.go.jp/english/index.htm;
[19]Lisa Almqvist, Anthony Beachey, etc., the Official Year Book of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, London:Office of National Statistics, (2005);
[20]Marc Levin, Esq, Overcriminalization:2011-2012 Legislators' Guide to the Issues, Texas Public Policy Foundation, July 8, (2011);
[21]Martin Killias, European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice 2010 Statistics (4th edition). Universite deLausanne & Boom Juridische Uitgevers & Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-en Documentatiecentrum, (2010);
[22]Ministry of Justice, Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1994 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1995);
[23]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1995 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1996);
[24]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1996 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1997);
[25]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1997 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1998);
[26]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1998 Statistics Bulletin. London, (1999);
[27]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 1999 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2000);
[28]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2000 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2001);
[29]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2001 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2002);
[30]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2002 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2003);
[31]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2003 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2004);
[32]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2004 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2005);
[33]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2005 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2006);
[34]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2006 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2007);
[35]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2007 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2008);
[36]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2008 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2009);
[37]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2009 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2010);
[38]Sentencing Statistics:England and Wales 2009 Statistics Bulletin. London, (2011);
[39]National Audit Office, Ministry of Justice:Financial Management Report 2011. London, (2011);
[40]National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Final Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Washington:U.S. Government Printing Office, (1971);
[41]National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Crime and Criminal Justice in Finland 2009, National Research Institute of Legal Policy (2010);
[42]Office of Court Administration, Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1993, Austin, (1993);
[43], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1994, Austin, (1994);
[44], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1995, Austin, (1995);
[45], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1996, Austin, (1996);
[46], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1997, Austin, (1997);
[47], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1998, Austin, (1998);
[48], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 1999, Austin, (1999);
[49], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2000, Austin, (2000);
[50], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2001, Austin, (2001);
[51], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2002, Austin, (2002);
[52], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2003, Austin, (2003);
[53], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2004, Austin, (2004);
[54], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2005, Austin, (2005);
[55], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2006, Austin, (2006);
[56], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2007, Austin, (2007);
[57], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2008, Austin, (2008);
[58], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2009, Austin, (2009);
[59], Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2010, Austin, (2010);
[60]Official Statistics of Finland (OSF):Prosecutions, Sentences and Punishments [e-publication], Helsinki:Statistics Finland, Access method: http://www.stat.fi/til/syyttr/index_en.html;
[61]Rob Widdershove, Encroachment of Criminal law in Administrative law in the Netherlands, http://www.ejcl.org/64/art64-25.html;
[62]Scottish Economic Statistics, Number of Family Units and Persons in each Family Type 2005/06. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007 /07/18083820/71;
[63]Social Condition, Health and Justice, Justice:Persons Guilty in Crimes and National Origin, Statistics Denmark:(2010), Stranafl.http://www.statbank.dk/STRAFNA1;
[64]Statistical Yearbook of Norway 2010, Oslo:Statistics Norway, (2010);
[65]Statistics Canada & Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Adult Criminal Court Survey:Number of Guilty Cases by Type of Sentence (1994/95-2008/09) [computer file]. Ottawa, Ont.:Statistics Canada, (2010);
[66]Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland, Defendants Adjudicated DefendantsConvicted,http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/des tatis/Internet/EN/content/Statistics/Justice/CriminalProsecution/Content7 5/Defendants AdjudicatedConvictedInfo.psml;
[67]Statistics Canada, Canada Year Book 2010, Ottawa, Ont.:Minister of industry, (2010), NO.11-402-XPE;
[68]Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 252-0046 and Catalogue no. 85-002-X.Last modified:May 4(2011);
[69]Statistics Netherland, Statistical Yearbook 2011, Haug (2011);
[70]Statistisches Bundesamt Reihe 3.1991.Rechtspflege:Strafverfolgung 1996. Stuttgart:Metzler Poeschel, (1997);
[71]Steve Moffatt, Suzanne Poynton, The Deterrent Effect of Higher Fines on Recidivism:Driving offences, Crime and Justice Bulletin,No.106, (2007);
[72]Supreme Court of Japan, Outline of Criminal Justice in Japan, http://www.courts.go.jp/english/proceedings/criminal_justice.html;
[73]The Federal Statistical Office,2006 Conviction Statistics, in Jorg-Martin Jehle Criminal Justice in Germany (5th), Berlin:Federal Ministry of Justice, (2009);
[74]The Scottish Government, Statistical Bulletin Crime and Justice Series, Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts 2006/2007, Edinburgh, (2008);
[75]Statistical Bulletin Crime and Justice Series, Crimin al Proceedings in Scottish Courts 2007/2008, Edinburgh, (2009);
[76]Statistical Bulletin Crime and Justice Series, Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts 2008/2009, Edinburgh, (2010);
[77]The Scottish Government, Statistical Bulletin:Criminal Proceedings in Scotland 2009-2010,Edinburgh:(2011);
[78]The Spangenberg Project, An Update on State Efforts in Misdemeanor Reclassification, Penalty Reduction and Alternative Sentencing, The Center for Justice, Law and Society at George Mason University The American Bar Association,Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, (Sept.2010);
[79]United States Sentencing Commission, Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (1996), Washington D.C., (1997);
[80]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (1997), Washington D.C., (1998);
[81]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (1998), Washington D.C., (1999);
[82]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (1999), Washington D.C., (2000);
[83]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2000), Washington D.C., (2001);
[84]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2001), Washington D.C., (2002);
[85]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2002), Washington D.C., (2003);
[86]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2003), Washington D.C., (2004);
[87]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2004), Washington D.C., (2005);
[88]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2005), Washington D.C., (2006);
[89]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2006), Washington D.C., (2007);
[90]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2007), Washington D.C., (2008);
[91]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2008), Washington D.C., (2009);
[92]Annual Report & Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2009), Washington D.C., (2010);
[93]U. S.'Federal Sentencing Commission,2010 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, (2010);
[94]U.S Census Bureau, Texas, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000. html:
[95]Wendy Searle, Court-Imposed Fines:A Survey of Judges, Wellington: Ministry of Justice (2003);
[96]Zamist Ida, Fine in Sentencing:An Empirical Study of Fine Use, Collection and Enforcement in New York City Court. New York:Vera Institute of Justice, (1986).
[1]Arizona:Arizona Penal Code;
[2]Australia:New South Wales, Fines Act 1996, No.2;
[3]Australia:Queesland Summary Offences Act 2005;
[4]California:Penal Code of California;
[5]Canada:Criminal Code of Canada;
[6]Finland:Finland Penal Code;
[7]France:France Penal Code;
[8]Rusia:Code of Administrative Offence of Russian Federation;
[9]Unite States Federal:Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.