Analysis Of Judicial Practices In Malfeasance Crimes

The corruption issue is endless.The "opportunity" for corruption arises from "power".Behind most corruption behaviors is malfeasance.In recent years crackdown on corruption continues to intensify,yet the same cannot be said about punishment on crimes arising from malfeasance in office.The most common form of malfeasance crimes is the abuse of power,and the majority of present study on power abuse conducted by criminal law scholars delve into research and discussion from the theoretical perspective or from individual cases.As the level of openness in criminal jurisprudence continues to rise,a large number of judicial decisions are opened to the public.This paper attempts to conduct analysis from a judicial practice point of view by selecting a certain number of judicial decision as data sample and in combination with key components,convictions and penalties in power abuse crimes.This paper will discuss about four issues selected from statistical analysis.The first issue is the scope of the main entity responsible for committing power abuse crime.The concept and scope of the power abuse crime main entity,as in "employee of state organ," is unclear while judicial organs leverage on reasons such as "explanation" and "summary" to continual expanding the scope of power abuse crime main entity,thus within judicial practice there is the issue of expansion of the scope of power abuse crime main entity.The second issue is the imputation of multiple causes to a single power abuse crime.Detrimental outcomes from power abuse crime usually arise from multiple causes,but imputing wrongdoing to each cause is a difficulty in the judgment of power abuse crimes.The third issue is the standards for conviction of power abuse crimes,because for one,the standards for conviction of power abuse crimes include sweeping charges such as "major losses" or "grave influences," which are hard to define in actual judicial practice;for another,sometimes the detriments of power abuse crime are intangible and nearly impossible to quantify in judicial practice,resulting in indictment of some normal actions as criminal acts,while other criminal acts are left untouched.The fourth issue is the punishment for power abuse crimes,which is in general too mild,including overly compromising sentences for power abusers that turn themselves in,too many instances of reduction in or exemption from punishment,and a lack of heavy punishments for serious and severe acts,which result in ineffectiveness in combating against power abuse crimes.This paper attempts to explain and analyze the aforementioned issues.