The Implementation And Implementation Of The Principle Of Ignorance In The Chinese Legal System Is Related To The Transfer And Clarification Of Administrative Responsibility And Criminal Responsibility

“Protection against double jeopardy” is a legal doctrine to the effect that no legalaction can be instituted twice for the same cause of action, which is one of foundingprinciples of administrative law enforcement, and a hot issue for the academic circleand legal practice. Compare to other kinds of laws, the legality of administrative lawenforcement is challenged more often. There are three reasons: First, the academicresearch on administrative law enforcement is rare. Second, China has not set up aperfect system of the judicial review of administrative acts. The scope of acceptingcases listed in Article11of the Administrative Procedure Law is quite narrower than thecases raised in practice, and some kinds of administrative acts are simply not justifiable.As a result, the legality of administrative law enforcement is undermined. Third, theacademic research on Administrative law has, for a long time, focused on thelegalization of administrative acts and the construction of relative legal system, whilepaid less attention to the external environment of administrative acts, especially to thelogic of the law enforcement persons’ behavior. For those reasons, it is difficult toguarantee that the doctrine of “protection against double jeopardy” being implementedin real practice. Such a problem may cause serious consequence. For example, thelawful rights and interests of the administrative counterpart could not be protected well,or even be damaged seriously. The law enforcement agencies may face resistance fromthe public, which will thus push up the cost of law enforcement, increase difficulties ofsociety administration, and block the modernization transition.Considering the problems mentioned above, this paper shall focus on the relationbetween administrative liability and criminal liability, and do research on the implementof the doctrine “protection against double jeopardy” in China. The administrativeliability is a negative evaluation for administrative acts that occurred in the process ofsocial administration. Comparatively, the criminal liability is a stronger negativeevaluation for the acts violating social administration norms, or seriously damaged thelawful rights and interests of citizens. The connection between administrative liability and criminal liability has always been a difficulty in legal practice. To this end, theadministrative organs and judicial organs have established a mechanism to connect theadministrative law enforcement and criminal justice system. However, this mechanismonly exists in some parts of government’s social administration, such as theadministrative organs for industry, commerce and taxation.To this end, this paper suggests that we should perfect the mechanism ofconnecting the administrative law and criminal justice. It is a tough work for sure. Theobjectives of the mechanism must be clear; the administrative organs must haveconsensus on the distinguishing administrative liability from criminal liability; and theconflict between different regulations should be resolved through consultation, on thebasis of sufficient evidence. Besides, the institution for dispute settlement should beestablished in order to stop administrative organs from replacing criminal punishmentsby administrative punishments, and refusing to submit the case to judicial department.Thus, the law’s function in social government could work more effectively.