司法機關在輕罪治理中的目標設定與實現路徑

The Goal Setting and Reasonable Path of Judicial Organs in the Treatment of Misdemeanors

“促進構建治罪與治理並重的輕罪治理體系”已經成為檢察機關改革的重點內容之一。輕罪治理是犯罪治理在輕罪場域的實踐，其在本質上屬於犯罪預防，要充分發揮刑事司法的作用，最大限度地推動輕罪治理的展開。兼容柔性預防的犯罪治理具有自主性和積極性，辦理輕罪案件體現了對犯罪進行分類治理的合理選擇。在刑事司法中對輕罪採取從輕從寬處理的方式確有必要，但對輕罪案件不能一味從寬，而應根據犯罪有效預防的需要，決定處理和治理的方式。司法機關辦理輕罪案件的“抓手”在於解決三大制度性難題，即減少輕罪治理的犯罪標籤、避免前科報告制度的負面後果，以及重視犯罪附隨後果導致的遺患。就司法機關處理輕罪案件的具體途徑來說，首先，應精準適用寬嚴相濟刑事政策，將刑事政策的價值選擇融入刑法體系之中；其次，提倡並運用社會相當性原理，對於一些行政違法的輕微行為不作為犯罪處理；最後，應當有效融通刑法總則和分則規定，尤其重視網絡犯罪司法適用中刑法總則與分則的融通問題。

Promoting the construction of a misdemeanor management system that attaches equal importance to crime and management has become one of the key contents of the reform of the procuratorial organs. Criminal justice should assist in the goal of mitigating minor offenses by providing lenient treatment to cases. Therefore, it is necessary to first clarify the position and functional positioning of criminal justice in the system of minor crime governance. Handling minor crime cases is a part of crime governance and criminal justice is the lever to achieve minor crime governance. Treating criminal cases with leniency is currently the main direction for criminal justice to handle minor crime cases. The work of minor crime governance should be embedded in the strategy of comprehensively governing the country according to law. The governance of minor offenses essentially belongs to crime prevention, and the role of criminal justice should be fully utilized to maximize the promotion of the governance of minor offenses. Saving criminal labels in the judicial process is a crucial condition for achieving the governance of minor offenses. The crime governance that is compatible with flexible prevention has autonomy and initiative, and handling minor crime cases reflects a reasonable choice for classifying and managing crimes. It is necessary to adopt a light and lenient approach in criminal justice for minor offenses, but for minor cases, leniency should not be blindly applied. Instead, the handling and governance methods should be determined based on the needs of effective crime prevention. The '' key'' for judicial organs to handle minor crime cases lies in solving three major institutional problems: reducing the criminal labels of minor crime governance, avoiding the negative consequences of the criminal record reporting system, and paying attention to the aftermath of crime. As for the specific ways in which judicial organs handle minor crime cases, firstly, they should accurately apply the criminal policy of balancing leniency and severity, and integrate the value selection of criminal policy into the criminal law system. The first is to clarify the general rules of the lenient and strict criminal policy for different types of crimes (persons); The second is to limit the threshold for criminalization through reasonable evaluation of judicial and administrative standards; The third is to accurately grasp the relationship between criminal law and other departmental laws. Secondly, social equivalence implies a simple concept of social justice, and the principle of social equivalence should be advocated and applied to prevent minor administrative violations from being treated as crimes; Currently, what is more unfavorable for criminals to return to society and even for the governance of minor crimes is the accompanying consequences of the crime. Finally, it is necessary to effectively integrate the general provisions and specific provisions of the Criminal Law, with particular emphasis on the integration of the general provisions and specific provisions of the Criminal Law in the judicial application of cybercrime, and to solve problems such as the criminalization of aiding behavior, the implementation of preparatory behavior, and the individualization of criminal circumstances. Of course, the judicial approach is not sufficient to directly combat the negative impact of the criminal record reporting system and the accompanying consequences of crime, but its role cannot be denied.