论文部分内容阅读
在我国应对国际追赃追逃和联合国普遍定期审议的双重挑战中,虐待被监管人罪能否足以成为被监管人权利保障的可信机制之一从来都是核心议题。规范分析和案例研究表明,司法和行政机关对该罪“监管机构”的狭窄化解释和高达61%的免予处罚适用率导致该罪功能虚置。为有效发挥虐待被监管人罪的人权保障机能,应根据法律保留原则重审审视该罪的“监管机构”构成要件。一方面,统一采纳“监管机构”术语并不再使用“监管场所”概念,基于实质解释立场将其界定为任何基于公共权力机构安排限制或剥夺公民人身自由的地点。另一方面,制定“刑罚执行法”时以概括式定义方式清晰界定监管机构且专章规范刑罚执行的监管机构,同时进一步探索逐步制定统一的“监管机构法”。
In our country’s response to the dual challenges of international pursuit of stolen goods and universal periodic review of the United Nations, one of the most credible mechanisms of ill-treatment of those under supervision has always been enough to be the safeguards of the rights of supervisors. Normative analysis and case studies show that the narrow interpretation of the criminal “regulator” by the judicial and administrative authorities and the 61% exemption from penalty penalties result in the hypothetical function of the crime. In order to effectively exert the human rights protection function of the crime of supervising the abusers, we should reexamine the constitutional elements of the “regulatory body” in accordance with the principle of legal reservation. On the one hand, the uniform adoption of the term “regulatory body” no longer uses the notion of “regulatory place” and defines it based on the position of substantive interpretation as any place on the public authority basis that limits or deprives citizens of their personal liberty. On the other hand, when formulating the Law on the Implementation of Penalties, the regulatory agencies that clearly define the regulatory agencies in a broad definition and regulate the implementation of penalties should be further explored and gradually formulated to establish a unified law on regulatory agencies.