System Betrays Theory--Comment About The Penalty Of Fine's Coverage In China

The advocates for penalty of fine must be happy to see its high proportion in the current criminal law, does high proportion mean strong effect? Obviously, it doesn't To make the penalty of fine produce its good results, we must adjust the system according to different occasions: apply the penalty of fine to the fit crime type. The first question of this article will solve is what crime type should be allocated penalty of fine? At this issue, the writer doesn't say everybody says, on the contrary, I conduct lots of explorations in academic theories and analysis. For example, is penalty light punishment? We can't answer it by our intuitive and other persons' views. The article starts with the rules of allocating penalty, proves it is really light punishment Then the writer proves from the academic theory angle, which the penalty of fine should be allocated to the crime of pursuing illegal profits, unintentional crime, light crime, legal person crime and youth crime.Under this premise, I analyses the criminal code, and discover that many aspects of system don't charm to the premise. For instance, not all crimes of pursuing illegal profits are allocated penalty of fine, these crimes which not be allocated are allocated confiscatory penalty, this situation confuses the functions of penalty of fine and confiscatory penalty; and the majority of unintentional crime and light crime aren't allocated penalty of fine; even analyses from the proportion of coexistence of penalty of fine and other penalties, the penalty of fine will be proved that it's not light penalty. We worry about this abnormal situation unavoidably.So I find the causes just from the system itself. The first reason is the amount model of penalty of fine excessively depends on unlimited style. There are twocauses, one is the proportional model requires more legislation technologies, but China hasn't grasped the related technologies. The other cause is the limited model will lead to allocate light punishment to felony. For perfectly safe, legislator like to use unlimited penalty of fine model. Just this model which contradicts with the principle that crime and penalty must be statutory, since its defenseless flaw, we have to feel lucky that the unintentional crime and light crime aren't allocated fine. The second reason is fine's using model. At the beginning, for making the penalty of fine is used inevitably, legislator selects the model that penalty of fine must be combined with penalty of freedom. But this model doesn't realize the target to lighten penalty, on the contrary, it weights the penalty. This is the reason why the unintentional crime and light crime aren't allocated fine. After all, it is too cruel to weight the penalty for these crime types.But it doesn't end. Behind above reasons, the key cause is related systems' unsatisfactory. For instance, how to divide the light crime and grave crime? The criminal law never makes known its clear and definite stand. We have been used to judging the crime based on the penalty. But this method will lead to a illogic circle: when we judge whether a light crime is allocated a light penalty, we can't get a certain answer that which crime is light crime at first. So 1 think the criminal law should establish a watershed between the light crime and grave crime.Why does the model that penalty of fine must be combined with penalty of freedom weight the penalty? Just because of the incorrect relation between the penalty of penalty of fine and freedom. There isn't bridge to communicate them mutually. Therefore, we should build such bridge.Although, there are some scholars still object the penalty of fine nowadays, but I believe we shouldn't prove the penalty of fine is flaw, on the contrary, we should exert its prevalence as much as we can.