刑事认定与行政认定关系探究
|
摘要
在对行政犯罪进行追诉过程中,因其具有行政违法性和刑事犯罪性双重属性,需要行政执法机关和刑事司法机关对该违法行为分别作出行政认定和刑事认定,而刑事认定与行政认定关系的和谐与否,则直接关系着行政犯罪追诉活动的顺利进行。二者关系的协调统一,有助于打击和遏制行政犯罪,维护法律公正,保护公民合法权益不受侵害。然而,在司法实践中,行政认定与刑事认定关系不和谐——错位的现象时有发生,导致“以罚代刑”问题的出现。针对严峻的司法困境,本文旨在通过探究二者关系的应然状态以及产生问题的原因,并最终提出解决与改善问题的思考路径。
According to Administrative Criminal Law theory, the administrative crimes always have double illegalities which include both administrative illegality and criminal law violation. First, the administrative crimes violate administrative laws and regulations; furthermore, the behaviors do great harm to the society and personal safety, thus they violate the criminal law and have the nature of criminal transgression. Accordingly, if we can find the administrative criminal behaviors, two steps need to be proceeded: first, the recognition of administrative law illegality; and second, the finding of violation of criminal law. The two steps have relationships but still different. This article from the Criminal Identification and the relationship between the administrative identified the perspective, focus on exploring the relationship between the two following four questions:
First, criminal identification and relationship between the administrative found the theoretical inquiry. The prosecuting of the administrative crimes in administrative and criminal procedures can be harmonious in theory. First, the recognition of administrative law violation is a form of administrative confirmation which is a semi-administrative conduct. It plays a complementary role in the finding of criminal law transgression. Because not until a behavior violate the administrative laws and regulations can it has the possibility to violate the criminal law and construct an administrative crime. So the finding of administrative law violation has no value of independent existence; Secondly, the criminal law has a nature of indemnificatory law. When imposing criminal penalties to administrative crimes, the criminal law is a regime to secure the administrative law to be observed. That is, when the behaviors have great perniciousness and gravity which beyond the jurisdiction of administrative laws, the criminal law need to regulate these behaviors and impose criminal liabilities and penalties; at last, the criminal law has a lot of provisions of blank facts about a crime. The provisions of blank facts about a crime are in accordance with the principle of legality. In the process of prosecuting of the administrative crimes, behaviors in the provisions of blank facts about a crime need to be judged by administrative and judicial agencies. The finding of both administrative and criminal law violation is the prerequisite to determine whether the behaviors constitute crimes. Anyway, in this process, the harmony of administrative and criminal identification is an inevitable requirement.
Second, criminal identification and status of the relationship between the administrative finds inquiry. Simultaneously, in our country's current law system, there is complete basis of legal system between criminal identification and administrative identification. Constitution affirms the right of judicial supervision to administrative power. The criminal law regulates the coordinated legal basis between criminal identification and administrative identification. There are also rules of coordination between criminal identification and administrative identification, which facilitate the harmonious relations between criminal identification and administrative identification.
However, in the judicial practice, there are complex relations in harmony between criminal identification and administrative identification. The disharmony between criminal identification and administrative identification enbodies the discoordination of identification in both content and process, and even contradiction as follows: firstly, the confusion between Criminal identification and administration identification; secondly, the conflict between Criminal identification and administration identification; thirdly, administrative procedures for identification and criminal non-smooth convergence identified.
Third, criminal identification and relationship between the administrative identified the hazards and the Causes of dislocation. In the judical practice, it’s harmful of the disharmony between Criminal identification and administration identification ,which will lead to the phenonmen of‘the replacement of criminal penalty with administrative penalty’, such as : the administrative authority’s failure to abide by the law and not strictly enforcement. Subject to the affection of local protectionism , departmental protectionism and even interest-driven ,they are not willing to transfer the case and miss the favorable opportunity of investigation , putting the case on record and transfer. They tends to ignore the interrogate of criminal, the collection of evidence and the transfer of the case , which makes the case unable to enter the judicial process because of insufficient evidence.
The disharmony relationship between administrative identification and criminal identification is caused by many elements. Existing law is unclear, too broad, but also at the level of law enforcement. Administrative identification and criminal identification are closed to each other, lacking of communication and law enforcement staff in their own reasons.
Fourth, criminal identification and improvement of relations between the administrative finds inquiry. At the moment, poor supervision while the prosecution is one of the important reasons behind the problem. At present, the phenomenon of "substituting fines for punishment", the administrative authorities’usual practice of criminal cases, is very serious. The grim reality requires an effective way to improve the relationship between administrative identification and criminal identification. Therefore the author from entity to program, from law enforcement to supervision, two vertical angles and four respects, attempts to design the mechanism which will improve the relationship between administrative identification and criminal identification, after establishing the independence and authoritative of judicial power. Specifically, including the following aspects, the first step is to establish the independence and authority of the criminal identification to improve the relationship between criminal identification and administrative identification. The second one is establishing the principle of criminal priority to improve the relationship between criminal identification and administrative identification. Third, improve the supervision of administration to improve the relationship between criminal identification and administrative identification. Forth, improve the convergence of identification process to improve the relationship between criminal identification and administrative identification.
According to Administrative Criminal Law theory, the administrative crimes always have double illegalities which include both administrative illegality and criminal law violation. First, the administrative crimes violate administrative laws and regulations; furthermore, the behaviors do great harm to the society and personal safety, thus they violate the criminal law and have the nature of criminal transgression. Accordingly, if we can find the administrative criminal behaviors, two steps need to be proceeded: first, the recognition of administrative law illegality; and second, the finding of violation of criminal law. The two steps have relationships but still different. This article from the Criminal Identification and the relationship between the administrative identified the perspective, focus on exploring the relationship between the two following four questions:
First, criminal identification and relationship between the administrative found the theoretical inquiry. The prosecuting of the administrative crimes in administrative and criminal procedures can be harmonious in theory. First, the recognition of administrative law violation is a form of administrative confirmation which is a semi-administrative conduct. It plays a complementary role in the finding of criminal law transgression. Because not until a behavior violate the administrative laws and regulations can it has the possibility to violate the criminal law and construct an administrative crime. So the finding of administrative law violation has no value of independent existence; Secondly, the criminal law has a nature of indemnificatory law. When imposing criminal penalties to administrative crimes, the criminal law is a regime to secure the administrative law to be observed. That is, when the behaviors have great perniciousness and gravity which beyond the jurisdiction of administrative laws, the criminal law need to regulate these behaviors and impose criminal liabilities and penalties; at last, the criminal law has a lot of provisions of blank facts about a crime. The provisions of blank facts about a crime are in accordance with the principle of legality. In the process of prosecuting of the administrative crimes, behaviors in the provisions of blank facts about a crime need to be judged by administrative and judicial agencies. The finding of both administrative and criminal law violation is the prerequisite to determine whether the behaviors constitute crimes. Anyway, in this process, the harmony of administrative and criminal identification is an inevitable requirement.
Second, criminal identification and status of the relationship between the administrative finds inquiry. Simultaneously, in our country's current law system, there is complete basis of legal system between criminal identification and administrative identification. Constitution affirms the right of judicial supervision to administrative power. The criminal law regulates the coordinated legal basis between criminal identification and administrative identification. There are also rules of coordination between criminal identification and administrative identification, which facilitate the harmonious relations between criminal identification and administrative identification.
However, in the judicial practice, there are complex relations in harmony between criminal identification and administrative identification. The disharmony between criminal identification and administrative identification enbodies the discoordination of identification in both content and process, and even contradiction as follows: firstly, the confusion between Criminal identification and administration identification; secondly, the conflict between Criminal identification and administration identification; thirdly, administrative procedures for identification and criminal non-smooth convergence identified.
Third, criminal identification and relationship between the administrative identified the hazards and the Causes of dislocation. In the judical practice, it’s harmful of the disharmony between Criminal identification and administration identification ,which will lead to the phenonmen of‘the replacement of criminal penalty with administrative penalty’, such as : the administrative authority’s failure to abide by the law and not strictly enforcement. Subject to the affection of local protectionism , departmental protectionism and even interest-driven ,they are not willing to transfer the case and miss the favorable opportunity of investigation , putting the case on record and transfer. They tends to ignore the interrogate of criminal, the collection of evidence and the transfer of the case , which makes the case unable to enter the judicial process because of insufficient evidence.
The disharmony relationship between administrative identification and criminal identification is caused by many elements. Existing law is unclear, too broad, but also at the level of law enforcement. Administrative identification and criminal identification are closed to each other, lacking of communication and law enforcement staff in their own reasons.
Fourth, criminal identification and improvement of relations between the administrative finds inquiry. At the moment, poor supervision while the prosecution is one of the important reasons behind the problem. At present, the phenomenon of "substituting fines for punishment", the administrative authorities’usual practice of criminal cases, is very serious. The grim reality requires an effective way to improve the relationship between administrative identification and criminal identification. Therefore the author from entity to program, from law enforcement to supervision, two vertical angles and four respects, attempts to design the mechanism which will improve the relationship between administrative identification and criminal identification, after establishing the independence and authoritative of judicial power. Specifically, including the following aspects, the first step is to establish the independence and authority of the criminal identification to improve the relationship between criminal identification and administrative identification. The second one is establishing the principle of criminal priority to improve the relationship between criminal identification and administrative identification. Third, improve the supervision of administration to improve the relationship between criminal identification and administrative identification. Forth, improve the convergence of identification process to improve the relationship between criminal identification and administrative identification.
引文
1. Baumman/Weber,Strafrecht AT ,2003,§17Rn.125.转引自车浩:《论行政许可的出罪功能》,载于戴玉忠、刘明祥主编:《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》北京大学出版社2008年版,第406页。
2. Bloy, Straftaten gegen die Umwelt, ZStW 100(1988),485(500).转引自车浩:《论行政许可的出罪功能》,载于戴玉忠、刘明祥主编:《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第406页。
3.储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社2004年版,第3页。
4.黄河:《行政刑法比较研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版,第99页。
5.参见《现代汉语词典》,商务印书馆2005年版,第1150页。
6.参见郭华:《案件事实认定方法》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版,第48-58页。
7.德国刑法中关于行政犯罪与行政违法行为的质量区别说认为,行政犯罪与行政违法行为不但在行为的量上,而且在行为的质上均存在差别。行政犯罪行为在质上具有较深度的伦理的可责性,而且在量上具有较高的损害与社会危险性;相对的,行政违法行为在质上具有较低的伦理非难性,而且它在量上并不具有重大的损害性与社会危险性。参见高铭暄、孙晓:《行政犯罪与行政违法行为的界分》,载于《人民检察》2008年第15期,第7页。
8.马生安:《行政行为研究——宪政下的行政行为基本理论》,山东人民出版社2008年版,第308页。
9.参见杨小君:《关于行政认定行为的法律思考》,《行政法学研究》1999年第1期,第58页。
10.参见张明楷:《刑法在法律体系中的地位——兼论刑法的补充性与法律体系的概念》,《法学研究》1994年第6期(总第95期),第50页。
11.张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年版,第495页。
12.李洁:《论罪刑法定的实现》,清华大学出版社2006年版,第1页。
13.张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年版,第495页。
14.参见张冬霞:《论行政法对刑法的规范效应》,《中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版)》2008年第2期(总第132期),第97页。
15.参见高铭暄、孙晓:《行政犯罪与行政违法行为的界分》,《人民检察》2008年第15期,第7页。
16.参见李洁:《论罪刑法定的实现》,清华大学出版社2006年版,第66-83页。
17.参见李和仁:《形成打击经济犯罪的合力——建立行政执法与刑事执法相衔接工作机制座谈会述要》,《人民检察》2003年第12期,第39-41页。
18.参见时任国务院副总理吴仪同志在全国整顿和规范市场经济秩序的工作会议上的讲话,转引自秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第10页。
19.最高人民检察院侦查监督厅元明在吉林省检察机关审查逮捕质量培训班上的讲话,2007年8月31日,转引自秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第10页。
20.在犯罪学中,这种情况被称为“犯罪黑数”。
21.参见刘艳红、周佑勇:《行政刑法的一般理论》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第175-178页。
22.《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》第六十一条规定和《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百八十八条之规定等。
23.参阅林山田:《刑法通论》,台湾三民书局1984年版,第51页,转引自李晓明:《行政刑法学》,群众出版社2005年版,第204页。
24.杨兴培教授言,转载于周宜俊:《“经济违法行为的刑法介入”研讨会纪要》,载于游伟主编:《华东刑事司法评论》(第七卷),第308页。
25.参见王文华:《行政犯罪与行政违法的界定及立法方式》,《东方法学》2008年第4期,第72-73页。
26.李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第1页。
27.李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第3页。
28.参考秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第9-10页。
29.参见张书琴:《行政执法与刑事执法衔接机制的研究》,载于戴玉忠、刘明祥主编:《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第318页。
30.参考时延安:《行政处罚权与刑罚权的纠葛及其厘清》,《东方法学》2008年第4期,第100页。
31.孙笑侠:《司法权的本质是判断权——司法权与行政权的十大区别》,《法学》1998年第8期,第35页。
32.孙笑侠:《司法权的本质是判断权——司法权与行政权的十大区别》,《法学》1998年第8期,第35页。
33.孙笑侠:《司法权的本质是判断权——司法权与行政权的十大区别》,《法学》1998年第8期,第36页。
34.周长军、王海平:《论行政执法的检察监督》,《政法论丛》2006年12月第6期,第27页。
35.参见周长军、王海平:《论行政执法的检察监督》,《政法论丛》2006年12月第6期,第27页。
36.陈兴良:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆2005年版,第76页。
37.参见秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第20页。
38.蒙旗:《论行政机关移送罪案的法律监督》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》,2002年8月第S2期,第6-7页。
39.黄河:《行政刑法比较研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版,第158页。
40.刘艳红、周佑勇:《行政刑法的一般理论》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第178页。
41.参见《加强涉罪案件移送完善执法办案制度》,《中国工商报》2006年11月22日,第2版。
42.吴卫:《昆明市保障行政与刑事执法衔接开始实施〈暂行规定〉每季度举行联席会议》,载《云南日报》2004年10月29日,第3版。
43.秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第6页。
1.储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社2004年版。
2.黄河:《行政刑法比较研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版。
3.郭华:《案件事实认定方法》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版。
4.马生安:《行政行为研究——宪政下的行政行为基本理论》,山东人民出版社2008年版。
5.张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年版。
6.李洁:《论罪刑法定的实现》,清华大学出版社2006年版。
7.李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
8.刘艳红、周佑勇:《行政刑法的一般理论》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
9.李晓明:《行政刑法学》,群众出版社2005年版。
10.陈兴良:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆2005年版。
11.戴玉忠、刘明祥主编:《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
12.游伟主编:《华东刑事司法评论》(第七卷),法律出版社2004年版。
1.杨小君:《关于行政认定行为的法律思考》,《行政法学研究》1999年第1期。
2.张明楷:《刑法在法律体系中的地位——兼论刑法的补充性与法律体系的概念》,《法学研究》1994年第6期(总第95期)。
3.张冬霞:《论行政法对刑法的规范效应》,《中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版)》2008年第2期(总第132期)。
4.高铭暄、孙晓:《行政犯罪与行政违法行为的界分》,《人民检察》2008年第15期。
5.李和仁:《形成打击经济犯罪的合力——建立行政执法与刑事执法相衔接工作机制座谈会述要》,《人民检察》2003年第12期。
6.王文华:《行政犯罪与行政违法的界定及立法方式》,《东方法学》2008年第4期。
7.时延安:《行政处罚权与刑罚权的纠葛及其厘清》,《东方法学》2008年第4期。
8.孙笑侠:《司法权的本质是判断权——司法权与行政权的十大区别》,《法学》1998年第8期。
9.周长军、王海平:《论行政执法的检察监督》,《政法论丛》2006年12月第6期。
10.蒙旗:《论行政机关移送罪案的法律监督》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2002年8月第S2期。
2. Bloy, Straftaten gegen die Umwelt, ZStW 100(1988),485(500).转引自车浩:《论行政许可的出罪功能》,载于戴玉忠、刘明祥主编:《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第406页。
3.储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社2004年版,第3页。
4.黄河:《行政刑法比较研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版,第99页。
5.参见《现代汉语词典》,商务印书馆2005年版,第1150页。
6.参见郭华:《案件事实认定方法》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版,第48-58页。
7.德国刑法中关于行政犯罪与行政违法行为的质量区别说认为,行政犯罪与行政违法行为不但在行为的量上,而且在行为的质上均存在差别。行政犯罪行为在质上具有较深度的伦理的可责性,而且在量上具有较高的损害与社会危险性;相对的,行政违法行为在质上具有较低的伦理非难性,而且它在量上并不具有重大的损害性与社会危险性。参见高铭暄、孙晓:《行政犯罪与行政违法行为的界分》,载于《人民检察》2008年第15期,第7页。
8.马生安:《行政行为研究——宪政下的行政行为基本理论》,山东人民出版社2008年版,第308页。
9.参见杨小君:《关于行政认定行为的法律思考》,《行政法学研究》1999年第1期,第58页。
10.参见张明楷:《刑法在法律体系中的地位——兼论刑法的补充性与法律体系的概念》,《法学研究》1994年第6期(总第95期),第50页。
11.张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年版,第495页。
12.李洁:《论罪刑法定的实现》,清华大学出版社2006年版,第1页。
13.张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年版,第495页。
14.参见张冬霞:《论行政法对刑法的规范效应》,《中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版)》2008年第2期(总第132期),第97页。
15.参见高铭暄、孙晓:《行政犯罪与行政违法行为的界分》,《人民检察》2008年第15期,第7页。
16.参见李洁:《论罪刑法定的实现》,清华大学出版社2006年版,第66-83页。
17.参见李和仁:《形成打击经济犯罪的合力——建立行政执法与刑事执法相衔接工作机制座谈会述要》,《人民检察》2003年第12期,第39-41页。
18.参见时任国务院副总理吴仪同志在全国整顿和规范市场经济秩序的工作会议上的讲话,转引自秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第10页。
19.最高人民检察院侦查监督厅元明在吉林省检察机关审查逮捕质量培训班上的讲话,2007年8月31日,转引自秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第10页。
20.在犯罪学中,这种情况被称为“犯罪黑数”。
21.参见刘艳红、周佑勇:《行政刑法的一般理论》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第175-178页。
22.《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》第六十一条规定和《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百八十八条之规定等。
23.参阅林山田:《刑法通论》,台湾三民书局1984年版,第51页,转引自李晓明:《行政刑法学》,群众出版社2005年版,第204页。
24.杨兴培教授言,转载于周宜俊:《“经济违法行为的刑法介入”研讨会纪要》,载于游伟主编:《华东刑事司法评论》(第七卷),第308页。
25.参见王文华:《行政犯罪与行政违法的界定及立法方式》,《东方法学》2008年第4期,第72-73页。
26.李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第1页。
27.李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第3页。
28.参考秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第9-10页。
29.参见张书琴:《行政执法与刑事执法衔接机制的研究》,载于戴玉忠、刘明祥主编:《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第318页。
30.参考时延安:《行政处罚权与刑罚权的纠葛及其厘清》,《东方法学》2008年第4期,第100页。
31.孙笑侠:《司法权的本质是判断权——司法权与行政权的十大区别》,《法学》1998年第8期,第35页。
32.孙笑侠:《司法权的本质是判断权——司法权与行政权的十大区别》,《法学》1998年第8期,第35页。
33.孙笑侠:《司法权的本质是判断权——司法权与行政权的十大区别》,《法学》1998年第8期,第36页。
34.周长军、王海平:《论行政执法的检察监督》,《政法论丛》2006年12月第6期,第27页。
35.参见周长军、王海平:《论行政执法的检察监督》,《政法论丛》2006年12月第6期,第27页。
36.陈兴良:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆2005年版,第76页。
37.参见秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第20页。
38.蒙旗:《论行政机关移送罪案的法律监督》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》,2002年8月第S2期,第6-7页。
39.黄河:《行政刑法比较研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版,第158页。
40.刘艳红、周佑勇:《行政刑法的一般理论》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第178页。
41.参见《加强涉罪案件移送完善执法办案制度》,《中国工商报》2006年11月22日,第2版。
42.吴卫:《昆明市保障行政与刑事执法衔接开始实施〈暂行规定〉每季度举行联席会议》,载《云南日报》2004年10月29日,第3版。
43.秦俞:《行政犯罪追诉机制探究》,东北师范大学2009年硕士学位论文,第6页。
1.储槐植:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社2004年版。
2.黄河:《行政刑法比较研究》,中国方正出版社2001年版。
3.郭华:《案件事实认定方法》,中国人民公安大学出版社2009年版。
4.马生安:《行政行为研究——宪政下的行政行为基本理论》,山东人民出版社2008年版。
5.张明楷:《刑法学》,法律出版社2007年版。
6.李洁:《论罪刑法定的实现》,清华大学出版社2006年版。
7.李洁:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
8.刘艳红、周佑勇:《行政刑法的一般理论》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
9.李晓明:《行政刑法学》,群众出版社2005年版。
10.陈兴良:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆2005年版。
11.戴玉忠、刘明祥主编:《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
12.游伟主编:《华东刑事司法评论》(第七卷),法律出版社2004年版。
1.杨小君:《关于行政认定行为的法律思考》,《行政法学研究》1999年第1期。
2.张明楷:《刑法在法律体系中的地位——兼论刑法的补充性与法律体系的概念》,《法学研究》1994年第6期(总第95期)。
3.张冬霞:《论行政法对刑法的规范效应》,《中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版)》2008年第2期(总第132期)。
4.高铭暄、孙晓:《行政犯罪与行政违法行为的界分》,《人民检察》2008年第15期。
5.李和仁:《形成打击经济犯罪的合力——建立行政执法与刑事执法相衔接工作机制座谈会述要》,《人民检察》2003年第12期。
6.王文华:《行政犯罪与行政违法的界定及立法方式》,《东方法学》2008年第4期。
7.时延安:《行政处罚权与刑罚权的纠葛及其厘清》,《东方法学》2008年第4期。
8.孙笑侠:《司法权的本质是判断权——司法权与行政权的十大区别》,《法学》1998年第8期。
9.周长军、王海平:《论行政执法的检察监督》,《政法论丛》2006年12月第6期。
10.蒙旗:《论行政机关移送罪案的法律监督》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2002年8月第S2期。