论文部分内容阅读
公共惩罚与私人惩罚既相互排斥又相互补充,公共惩罚与私人惩罚的互动可以作为一个解读法律制度的视角。国家为维持法律实施的垄断,通常会对私人惩罚手段(尤其是私人暴力)进行限制,但为节省公共惩罚资源的支出,法律又必须在某些场合容忍甚至利用私人之间的监控与惩罚,公共惩罚资源的有限性迫使国家把私人之间的监控和惩罚视为一项重要的社会控制资源。法律制度的设计应当充分发挥公共惩罚和私人惩罚的比较优势,合理划分公共控制区域和私人控制区域,并努力追求社会控制总成本(即公共控制成本和私人控制成本之和)的最小化。西方近代政治的古典自由主义、中国古代政治的消极无为主义以及公法与私法的区分都在一定程度上体现了这一原则。
Public punishment and private punishment are both mutually exclusive and complementary, and the interaction between public punishment and private punishment can be used as a perspective to interpret the legal system. In order to maintain the monopoly of law enforcement, the state generally restricts private punishments (especially private violence). However, in order to save public expenditure on punished resources, the law must on some occasions tolerate and even use private surveillance and punishment, The limited resources of public punishment force the state to regard the monitoring and punishment between private persons as an important social control resource. The design of the legal system should give full play to the comparative advantages of public punishment and private punishment, divide the public control areas and the private control areas rationally, and strive to minimize the total social control costs (that is, the sum of public control costs and private control costs). To a certain extent, this principle is reflected to a certain extent by the classical liberalism of modern Western politics, the passive negation of ancient Chinese politics, and the distinction between public law and private law.