Necessity Of Penalization For The Offender In The Criminal Renconciliation Cases

The criminal reconciliation system originated in the 1970s in Canada, and it has been used in minor criminal cases with the popularity of the restorative justice. From the angle of building a harmonious society, the system can resolve social conflicts effectively, save the limited judicial resources significantly and bring the social order to"harmony"based on safeguarding the interests of both parties. But both the criminal law and judicial interpretation didn't stipulate specific punishment for the perpetrator. A series of practice which the judicial staff have summed up shows a chaotic situation. While the practice conflicts with the basic principles of punishment and the general idea that people have, and it lead to many social problems. So it is necessary to chang inherent concept , then improve the relevant legislation and unify judicial actions drawing on the successful practice of foreign countries. After that, we can explore the proper handling of the perpetrator in order to achieve legal effect , social effect and political effect of the combination.This article has three main parts.The first part is about the current punishment for the perpetrator and the problems. The part summed up several approaches for the perpetrator in judicial practice based on the data of cases through the legal basis of reconciliation and the regulatory documents. Then the author analyzed the handling of these problems laying the foundation for the subsequent discussion. The second part is about the necessity of punishment for the perpetrator. Punishing the perpetrator is helpful to protect the victim, achieve the modesty of the Criminal Law, reflect the individual penalties. It is also in line with the modern concept of law. First of all, through real cases, the author believes punishment for the perpetrator is conducive to better protection of the victim from the angle of making up for the limitations of economic compensation,reflecting the protective function of the Criminal Law, enhancing the physical and legal status of the victim. It is the account for the viticm that the state power is absent in the protection of personal property safty. Secondly, it is necessary to punishment the perpetrator from the view of the modesty of the Criminal Law and the suppression of effective constraints. It is also a constraint for which the criminal law has become too lenient. The punishment for the perpetrator is propitious to balancing the penalty. Again, the penalty is not a specialization of the individual. Do not punish the perpetrator is to give up provention function of the penalty. Combination of individual prevention and general prevention can be achieved through the appropriate mitigation for the perpetrator. At the same time it can maintain the legal authority and protect citizen's legitimate rights and interests.The third part is about some thoughts in the specific forms of punishment for the perpetrator. By means of the transformation of judicial philosophy and the penalty concept, the part pointed out that in the past judicial staff pursuit"harmony"in effect and digested the case as a goal blindly. However, the practice is not conducive to long-term development of the ciminal renconciliation system. It is necessary to introduce successful practice overseas for the unity of the perpetrator's punishment both in legislation and justice which will promote the modern rule of law.