A Comparative Study Of China And Philippines Penalty Types

The establishment of China and ASEAN Free Trade Area makes China and Philippines increasingly close contact both in the political field and in the economic field. But at the same time, a large number of transnational crimes between the two countries become increasingly rampant. The crime caused serious damage to the economic cooperation and political security and infringed on the common interests. The criminal cooperation in combating transnational crime in the present stage lacks strong legal basis. There are bigger difference in the penal code and great controversy in the legal understanding, docking, applicable and so on. In this paper, based on the perspective of comparative law, the penalty provisions of criminal law to the Philippines a detailed interpretation. Exploring the similarities and differences in penalty by contrasting Chinese penalty system, and puts forward some valuable things to learn from each other, made a theoretical explanation of the perfection of criminal penalty. To strengthen the criminal cooperation between the two countries in the future, jointly combat transnational crimes provide strong theoretical support.There are nearly forty thousand words in this thesis, was divided into six parts of the Philippines punishment legislation evolution and the penalty types and discusses the specific regulations.The first part is the comparison of penal legislation evolution between China and Philippines. According to the history of the development of China and Philippines, the historical process of the two countries is divided into different stages, separately elaborated the various stages of the legislative background and legislative history of penalty, and compared the legislative history of penalty of the two countries. The legislation evolution of penal of the two countries showed a more distinct differences, in the form of mode and absorption of advanced legal thought, and were not separated from the big trend of the penalty overall development. Whether in the kinds of punishment or in the procedure have many similarities, that the law of development of punishment has universal. Therefore, the two countries although different historical background, but there are comparing the feasibility in the criminal penalty system.The second part is the comparison of penal characteristic species between China and Philippines. Due to the type of penalty and supplementary punishments in the criminal code of between the two countries are cross section, according to the nature of criminal penalty deprive criminals of rights is divided into life penalty, physical punishment, qualification punishment, freedom punishment. Although there are a wide variety of penalty, most of the punishment can have one to one corresponding, penalty for the types of criminal law of most similar things. The criminal law of Philippines unique have the law guarantee civil rights, prohibition and pay the cost of litigation, the criminal law of our country has unique stays of execution and deported.The third part is the comparison of death penalty between China and Philippines. Starting with the abolition of the death penalty’s position and attitude and the provisions of death penalty, compares the two countries the death penalty system. The two countries adopt different countermeasures in the face of the world trend of the abolition of the death penalty. Politics and religion is the major factors that prompted the Philippines government made the abolition of the death penalty decision, without fully considering the national conditions. In the face of death penalty abolition of this question, our government really strict and cautious, however, both of the criminal code does careful regulation with the application of the death penalty, applicable object of strict restriction of the death penalty, prudent use of the death sentence procedure, the application of the death penalty cautiously.The fourth part is the comparison of property punishment between China and Philippines. Respectively expounds the different provisions between China and Philippines of fine penalty and confiscation, analysis and comparison from the status of fine punishment in the penalty system, the discretion of the fine punishment, the execution of the fine punishment and the confiscation of property of the content. In the penal system of China, fine punishment belongs to supplementary punishments, can be applied independently. At the discretion of fine penalty in our country with the circumstances of the crime principle; in fine penalty execution mode is divided into a one-time payment, installment payment, forced to pay, reduce or even exempt payment, payment whenever. In the penal system of Philippines, fine punishment belongs to principal punishments, can be used with severe punishment, correction and light punishment. At the discretion of fine penalty with the circumstances of the crime and the crime person economy principle; the provisions of the supplementary punishment in Philippines criminal law, its nature belongs to the fine punishment execution mode of special fine exchanging freedom penalty. In our country the property punishment law stipulates that there are many imperfections, do not accord with the development trend of the penalty of property, the existence of loopholes in the law application, decisions are difficult to execute.The fifth part is the comparison of freedom penalty and property punishment between China and Philippines. Respectively expounds the different provisions on the free punishment and qualification punishment of China and Philippines. Freedom punishment will be divided into non free punishment, freedom punishment, a period of short-term freedom penalty, punishment of limiting freedom respectively. In the qualification penalty, comparison of qualification penalty status, types, sentence. There were some differences in details stated in the penalty of depriving freedom, but in the legislative purpose and goal of freedom penalty is similar. In the penal system of China, qualification penalty belongs to the additional penalty. It can be attached to the application, but also can be applied independently. In the types of qualification penalty, our country provides for the four aspects, political color is too thick, the type of is single. In the qualification of criminal sentence, the present criminal law in our country according to the different types of punishments, the provisions of the relative reasonable, relatively perfect. In the penal system of Philippines, qualification penalty can be used as a punishment, but also can be used as a supplementary punishment. In the types of qualification penalty, our country has not stipulated the right of deprived of some occupation or industry. In qualification penalty sentence, Philippines criminal code also has deprived of their rights and the deprivation of the stipulated.The sixth part is our reference to Philippines and Philippines penalty punishment. In the death penalty reform, take a gradual approach, to limit the death penalty in legislation, judicial application of a moratorium on the death penalty, the final abolition of the death penalty. For the property punishment, the fine penalty to principal penalty, in general will clear the economic situation of offenders as a measure of factors, the establishment of fine penalty instead of freedom penalty system, based on the perfection of the fine penalty gradually abolished forfeiture system. The qualifications punishment, minimize the influence of political factors of qualification penalty, the practice qualification penalty politicized, and gradually enrich the types of qualification penalty, perfection of qualification penalty system. Philippines criminal law also has shortcomings, many of the provisions do not meet the requirements of the development of localization, need to adjust combined with the political factors, economic factors, cultural factors, national conditions. There are a lot of articles of the criminal procedure law, legislation is not strict accuracy, limit of criminal law and criminal procedure law is not clear enough.