|
Outline of reforming China’s penal system
Front. Law China. 2009, 4 (3): 376-400.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11463-009-0021-4
China’s penal system has to be reformed systemically on the basis of achievements in recent years. In terms of the penalty types and the penal system, it is necessary to further restrict death penalties through the legislative and judicial measures, improve or enrich liberal punishment, property punishment and identity punishment, and adjust the penal system as a whole. In terms of the sentencing system, the principle shall be expressly narrated and the standard for sentencing shall be explicitly specified and certain discretion for sentencing shall be legalized. With respect to the penalty execution system, the idea of open execution of punishment shall be established and the community correction system shall be established. With respect to the penalty elimination system, supplementation shall be taken for the time period of execution and corporate crimes, and the activation for prerogative of mercy. As for application of penalties to special groups, the penalties for juvenile offenders shall be fully relieved and reformed on purpose, and the penalties shall be mitigated for elderly offenders.
Related Articles |
Metrics
|
|
On directors’ accountability in China:
Good faith path
Front. Law China. 2009, 4 (3): 401-435.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11463-009-0022-3
The mode of deferential review on directors’ management decisions coincides with the requirements of adaptive efficiency, being conducive to encouraging directors’ tentative experiments. However, under the rule of business judgment, directors’ accountability requires for onerous burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the formal review of directors’ decisions and the uncertainty of the standard of care have rendered the duty of care almost an empty shell, and consequently the unfaithful conducts of directors between gross negligence and malice are always at large. The good faith path is not only a mechanism to fill the gap of accountability but an important mechanism to overcome the information asymmetry between shareholders and directors. The judicial practice of directors’ accountability in the 1990s produced a good faith path, and the good faith concept has been rejuvenated with creative changes, the standards of conducts become clear with the increasing operability of judicial reviews. In China, the standards on fiduciary conducts can be defined by the judicial interpretation of the Company Law, so as to incorporate such misconducts as intentionally causing the violation of law by company, failure to disclose candidly, abuse of power and gross disregard of responsibilities, hence inducing the good faith path to accountability.
Related Articles |
Metrics
|
7 articles
|