The Legal Study Of Administrative Dishonest Punishment

Honesty has always been the traditional virtue of the Chinese nation.Since 2007,our country has begun to explore the construction of a social credit system.As an important part of the administrative punishment for dishonesty,it plays an irreplaceable role in other types of punishments for dishonesty.In practice,administrative sanctions for dishonesty are favored by administrative agencies due to their effectiveness.In order to strengthen the implementation of administrative punishment for dishonesty,relevant normative documents formulated by governments at all levels and their functional departments have emerged one after another.However,behind such a trend of "fire cooking oil",why the administrative punishment for dishonesty comes into being,what kind of functional status does the punishment for administrative dishonesty have in the credit system,and how should the overall legal nature of punishment for administrative dishonesty be evaluated? The problem,both theoretical and practical circles lack in-depth thinking.In order to better demonstrate and study the above propositions,this article mainly uses literature analysis methods,normative research methods and empirical analysis methods to analyze and demonstrate on the basis of fully collecting and mastering relevant literature materials.Administrative punishment for dishonesty is an uncertain legal concept.Although the State Council put forward this concept,it did not clarify the specific meaning of this concept.Through the historical combing of the process of proposing this concept and the analysis of related concepts,it can be seen that administrative dishonesty punishment is a punishment behavior that administrative subjects implement against dishonest subjects based on their own administrative powers and "blacklists".It is a burdened administrative act carried out jointly by multiple subjects,and it is actionable.It has three major functions in the credit system,namely,strengthening legal deterrence,risk prevention and improving administrative efficiency.Secondly,administrative dishonesty punishment itself covers multiple disciplinary actions.In order to clarify its legal nature,we first need to classify them as a whole according to the purpose of punishment,and then according to different types of administrative dishonesty punishments exist in the setting process.The insufficiency of the legality control party has practical significance.Administrative sanctions for dishonesty can be divided into punishment type administrative dishonesty punishment and execution type administrative dishonesty punishment.Penalty administrative dishonesty punishment mainly focuses on sanctions and prevention,and has the legal attribute of administrative punishment;execution administrative dishonesty punishment mainly focuses on enforcement,which has the legal attribute of administrative enforcement.Thirdly,as an emerging product of administrative dishonesty punishment,there are still many shortcomings in the setting process: first,the setting of some disciplinary actions violates the principle of legal reservation;second,the scope of application breaks through the reasonable boundary;third,punishment The subject’s right to know the procedure and the right to request are not guaranteed.Finally,according to the analysis of the legal nature of punishments for administrative dishonesty punishment in Chapter 3 3.3,it can be seen that traditional administrative punishments cannot be compatible with punishments for administrative dishonesty punishment.Penalties for administrative dishonesty are justified and feasible as additional administrative penalties.In addition,according to the issues raised in Chapter 4,administrative sanctions for dishonesty can be improved from the following three aspects: first,the establishment of administrative dishonesty punishment should follow the principle of legal reservation;third,the application of administrative dishonesty punishment should follow The general principles of the law;fourth,the design and perfection of the procedural rights of the disciplinary object should be considered from both the right to know the procedure and the right to request.