Research On The Normalization Of Punishment For Dishonesty In Administrative Field

As the opposite concept of trustworthiness,dishonesty refers to the improper behavior of market entities in social activities that is contrary to social morality,public order and good customs in order to grab their own interests and disregard laws and regulations.Such behavior will not only impact the originally well-functioning market order,it will also cause the loss of public interest.With the construction and development of the social credit system,punishment for dishonesty has been widely used in the practice of administrative law enforcement,and the problem of punishment for dishonesty has also become a hot spot in the academic circle.Punishment for dishonesty has been widely favored by administrative agencies due to its strong deterrence,low administrative cost,and flexible law enforcement methods in social credit management.At the same time,it has had a significant impact on the lives of administrative counterparts.Among them,as a tool for the government and work departments to coordinate the governance of social credit and a means of social governance in administrative field,the extent to which the punishment of administrative dishonesty is regarded as technological innovation in governance and to what extent constitutes disciplinary abuse is a question worthy of discussion.As a new type of administrative activity,the legal basis for punishment of dishonesty in administrative field is chaotic.Various legal norms have different standards for dishonesty.There is a certain range of generalization and abuse of punishment for dishonesty.There are also deficiencies in procedures and substantive relief mechanisms.The punishment of dishonesty in the administrative field presents a form of anomie,and it is urgent to explore its standardized path.Specifically,our domestic current punishment for dishonesty in administrative field includes administrative guidance,administrative inspection,administrative punishment and other types of administrative actions.The legal nature of punishment for dishonesty in administrative field should be classified and defined according to the specific content of the punishment.Among them,penalties of "restrictions on qualifications and rights" and administrative blacklist have adverse consequences for the administrative counterpart.They should be defined as administrative penalties and be included in the adjustment scope of the Administrative Penalty Law.The establishment of punishment for dishonesty in administrative field reasonably and legally must be regulated in both substantive and procedural aspects.Substantively,raising the level of legislation solves the problem of too low legal basis;defining the criteria for identifying dishonesty to prevent the problem of generalization of dishonesty;clarifying the applicable subjects of the punishment for dishonesty solves the problem of different applicable subjects.Procedurally,take the incorporation of credit information as the starting point,and the collection of public credit information should be notified in advance;when serious untrustworthy entities are included in the blacklist,prior notice,in-event review,post-event objections,and credit restoration procedures are required;support credit subjects to provide relief through channels such as self-correction,administrative reconsideration,and administrative lawsuit.Implement legal regulations at the administrative law level for the punishment of dishonesty,so that punishment of dishonesty will enter the track of the rule of law as soon as possible,so as to provide a legal basis for the improvement of the legislative system,procedural norms and rights relief for punishment of dishonesty,promote the government’s administration according to law,and make it a legal and effective means for the government to strengthen supervision.At the same time,diversification of government supervision and governance tools should be cultivated to avoid excessive reliance on punishment for dishonesty.Of course,this is a continuous and long process that requires continuous exploration and efforts to coordinate the standardized development of related procedures and systems with the social credit system,and strengthen the legitimacy of credit supervision.