Pros And Cons Of State’s Monopoly On Penalty Right

Historically, the State inevitable monopolizes penalty right. From the perspective of contemporary social development, the State must give up its monopoly. Throughout history, State’s monopoly of penalty right has pros and cons. This article focuses on how The Criminal Law shall play its role in a more scientific and aggressive manner as society continues to progress and develop. The writer believes that combination of recovery type of penalty and traditional type of penalty is more suitable to ease a current development trend in wide range of social conflicts, and that commercialization of penalty could serve as a propellant. This thesis analyzes the pros and cons of the State’s monopoly on penalty right in different angles, and proposed the introduction on combination of recovery type of penalty and traditional type of penalty to better deal with crime problems.The first part analyzes in details the criminal justice system under the State’s monopoly of penalty right by respective samples of the United States, which adopts The Anglo American law system, Germany, which adopts the continental law system and China.The second part analyzes in details causes of the three crime peaks in history and the contemporary situation of global crime so as to bring out the question that whether the State’s monopoly of penalty right is able to solve all crimes.The third part analyzes in details the pros and cons of the State’s monopoly of penalty right. This part theoretically analyzes that the State’s monopoly of penalty right is an inevitable trend, but with social progress to current stage, the crimes faced by the country are no longer those pure private hatred at early monopoly period, but rather crimes completely evolved into a large-scale technological crime, regulation crime, statutory crime, administrative crime, and so on. Governance path of State’s monopoly on penalty rights is a single one and also a unique one. It can not completely conform to the trend of history.The fourth part sets forth improvement to the state’s monopoly of penalty right and innovation to the penalty system of our country. To address this problem, an idea of recovery type of justice assisting traditional type of justice is proposed and a market operation on part of penalty resources is suggested.