Research On Legislation Joint Punishment For Dishonesty

In recent years,China has paid great attention to the issue of social creditworthiness.Since 2014,it has officially started to build a social credit system.As a social credit system with Chinese characteristics,it is different from foreign credit reporting systems that are limited to the field of business reputation,It involves integrity in government affairs,business,society,and justice,a huge social credit system requires a joint punishment system for dishonesty as a means of realization,so joint punishment for dishonesty legislation plays a very important role in the design of the entire social credit system,but from the current situation of joint punishment legislation,Due to the low level of legislation,no internal logic system has been formed,and most of the legislative bodies are administrative agencies,there are many problems in joint disciplinary legislation,issues such as the expansion of administrative power and the generalization of the blacklist for joint disciplinary action have attracted widespread attention from academic circles and society.The legitimacy crisis existing in the current joint punishment for dishonesty legislation can be divided into the following aspects.From the point of view of the criteria for identifying dishonesty,on the one hand,it has slipped into moral evaluation,and on the other hand,it is confused with illegal crimes,and illegal and criminal acts are connected indiscriminately Joint disciplinary system for dishonesty;from the perspective of joint disciplinary measures,there are problems such as unauthorized large increases and decreases in licensing conditions,changes in punishment methods,violations of legal reservations,and large differences in standards for joint disciplinary actions for dishonesty;from the perspective of the main body of joint disciplinary measures,There are problems with the proliferation of subjects setting joint disciplinary measures and excessive discretionary power;in addition,excessive punishments for non-serious dishonesty behaviors and the problem of information islands also lead to a reduction in the significance of joint disciplinary actions to a certain extent.As a powerful and lethal governance tool,the legality crisis of the joint disciplinary system for dishonesty is a dangerous tendency.We must not only discover the problem,but also pursue the root cause of the problem to be able to solve the problem.The first is because of the utilitarian purpose of the system-the purpose of the system is to strengthen the implementation of the law to strengthen the regulation of citizen behavior;secondly,there is a strong administrative color in the implementation of the system,so although the legal nature of joint punishment is not Unification is reached,but the administrative nature of the current joint disciplinary measures for dishonesty is basically recognized,but the nature of the existing norms to infer the degree of customization is unavoidable to put the cart before the horse.The formation of the system should be based on its attributes,and the joint disciplinary action for dishonesty should be differentiated.In the traditional post-incident disciplinary mechanism,preventive is the basis of legitimacy.Finally,joint disciplinary measures as a kind of institutional credit have inherent flaws.From the perspective of theory and practice,joint disciplinary measures cannot cover government credit and judicial credit.It also faces the moral hazard of power rent-seeking.In order to solve these problems ultimately,it is necessary to promote the combination of the theoretical and practical basis of the joint punishment system for dishonesty,that is,to first determine the joint punishment for dishonesty as a "second punishment",which is equivalent to the current relatively complete law.To set up a barrier outside the system so that the establishment of such a barrier does not damage the existing legal system and does not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of citizens,it is necessary to establish a legal basis for the existence of a joint disciplinary system-it is a precautionary mechanism that restricts the untrustworthy dishonest perpetrator from re-executing the untrustworthy behavior qualifications.At the same time,its purpose should be to restrict the qualifications of the untrustworthy dishonest perpetrator based on the overall credit status of the dishonest perpetrator and reduce the possibility of re-offending.In legislative practice,all legislative entities should be established on this basis of legitimacy.On the one hand,a balanced legislative entity structure with game as the core is constructed,and multiple equal entities play games.The final legislative outcome should be to achieve all rights and interests.The result of the balanced interests of the parties,on the other hand,pays attention to the procedure design of joint punishment for dishonesty and the connection between punishment and dishonesty.According to the above theories,the future construction of the joint punishment legislative system for dishonesty should be carried out from the following aspects.First,we should unify the standards for identifying serious untrustworthy conduct;secondly,we should improve the joint legislation led by the National People’s Congress to restrain the power of joint disciplinary action;at the same time,in order to quickly solve the current dilemma,the joint disciplinary measures for dishonesty should be incorporated into the mature legal track according to typified standards,putting joint punishment for punitive dishonesty under the scope of the Administrative Punishment Law,and it should also be connected to the three traditional litigation systems;finally,the joint punishment norms should be improved in terms of standardized filing and review,judicial review by the court,and third-party supervision.The review and supervision mechanism.