The essence of administrative responsibility and its principles
Administrative responsibility is one of the types of legal liability. It comes as a result of a person committing an administrative offense, i.e. violation of the legislation on administrative violations, through which the protection of the individual, society and the state from administrative violations. Administrative responsibility represents the reaction of the state to the commission of administrative offenses provided for by law in various spheres (conduct in public places, trade, finance, nature management, etc.) and is expressed in the application of administrative penalties established by the relevant state authorities and officials.
In all cases, responsibility for administrative violations occurs before the state, which establishes the powers of bodies (officials) to review cases of these offenses and the imposition of penalties. This circumstance administrative responsibility is similar to the criminal one and differs from disciplinary and civil law. The responsibility of the latter two types comes primarily to the subject of contractual and extra-contractual civil-law or labor relations.
Measures of administrative responsibility are applied by a wide range of authorized bodies and officials. All of them, exercising their powers, appoint administrative offenders to offenders. These include judges (magistrates), commissions for the affairs of minors and the protection of their rights, and numerous executive bodies. By laws of subjects of the USA to them administrative commissions and other collective bodies can be referred.
The US Administrative Code has now expanded the range of cases considered by the judges. Their exclusive competence has also been expanded through the attribution of a number of other administrative punishments to their jurisdiction, in addition to administrative arrest: deprivation of special rights, confiscation, forfeiture of certain items, disqualification, administrative expulsion of foreign citizens and stateless persons outside the United States.
Administrative responsibility is also distinguished by a special procedural order of its implementation. By its relative simplicity, efficiency and efficiency, it differs from criminal and civil legal proceedings.
According to the contents administrative responsibility measures are expressed in the discrepancies or limitations of the offenders' rights and freedoms provided by the legislation on administrative responsibility, since otherwise they can not be exerted compulsory influence on these persons. Unfavorable consequences for the offender can occur in the form of deprivations or restrictions of moral (warning), material (fine, confiscation, forfeiture withdrawal) or physical nature (administrative arrest).
Administrative responsibilities are inherent general features of legal responsibility (offensive in the presence of an offense, regulation of the law, state coercion, the occurrence of adverse consequences for the perpetrator).
However, administrative responsibility has a number of differences from other types of legal liability.
So, unlike the criminal responsibility, administrative responsibility does not lead to a criminal record, is characterized by a lower severity of punishment and a shorter period of limitation.
The difference between administrative responsibility and civil liability lies in the fact that the latter is associated with causing material damage. Administrative liability can occur without infringing material damage.
From disciplinary responsibility, administrative responsibility differs in that it is not related to the subordination, official relations of the offender and the public authority (official), which brings him to justice.
The principles of administrative responsibility are:
equality before the law;
The presumption of innocence;
ensuring lawfulness when applying administrative coercion measures in connection with an administrative offense;
responsibility only on the basis of the law in force at the time and place of the administrative offense.
The principle of equality before the law is that the persons who committed administrative violations are equal before the law. Individuals are subject to administrative responsibility regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, and other circumstances. Legal entities are subject to administrative responsibility regardless of location, organizational and legal forms, subordination, and other circumstances. Special conditions for the application of measures to ensure proceedings in a case of an administrative offense and bringing to the administrative responsibility of officials performing certain governmental functions (deputies, judges, prosecutors and other persons) are established by the Constitution and federal laws.
Presumption of innocence as a principle of administrative responsibility is that a person is subject to administrative liability only for those administrative offenses for which his fault is established. The person brought to administrative responsibility is not obliged to prove his innocence. Irremovable doubts about the guilt of the person brought to administrative responsibility are interpreted in favor of this person.The person in respect of whom proceedings are being conducted in the case of an administrative offense shall be deemed to be innocent until his guilt is proved in accordance with the procedure provided for by the US Code of Administrative Offenses and established by an effective decision of a judge, body, official who considered the case.
One of the most important principles of administrative responsibility is the principle of ensuring legality when applying measures of administrative coercion in connection with an administrative offense. This principle is that a person brought to administrative responsibility can not be subjected to administrative punishment and measures to ensure the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense other than on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by law. The use of an administrative penalty or measures to ensure the production of a case on an administrative offense in connection with an administrative offense by an authorized body or official is carried out within the competence of the specified body or official in accordance with the law. When applying measures of administrative coercion, decisions and actions (inaction) that degrade human dignity are not allowed.
Compliance with the requirements of the law when applying measures of influence for administrative violations is provided by systematic supervision by higher authorities and officials, by the prosecutor's supervision, the right of appeal, in other ways established by law.
Responsibility only on the basis of the law in force at the time and place of the administrative offense, as the principle of administrative responsibility is that the person who committed the administrative violation is liable under the law in force at the time and in the place where the administrative offense was committed. A law that mitigates or abolishes administrative liability for an administrative offense or otherwise improves the position of a person who commits an administrative offense has retroactive effect, i. extends to the person who committed an administrative offense before the entry into force of this law and in respect of which the decision to impose an administrative penalty has not been enforced. The law that establishes or aggravates administrative liability for an administrative offense or otherwise worsens the position of a person does not have retroactive effect. The proceedings in the case of an administrative offense are carried out on the basis of the law in force at the time of the proceedings in the specified case.
Legislation on administrative liability and administrative offenses consists of the US Administrative Offenses Code and the laws of the United States on Administrative Offenses passed in accordance with it. At the same time, the United States is responsible for establishing: general provisions and principles of legislation on administrative violations; list of types of administrative penalties and rules for their application.
The US Administrative Code is based on the Constitution, universally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the United States. If the international treaty of the USA establishes other rules than those provided for by the legislation on administrative violations, then the rules of the international treaty are applied.The tasks of the legislation on administrative violations are the protection of the individual, the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms, the protection of public health, the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population, the protection of public morals, the protection of the environment, the established procedure for the exercise of state power, public order and public safety, property, protection of legal economic interests of individuals and legal entities, society and the state from administrative violations, and Also the prevention of administrative offenses.
The jurisdiction of the United States in the field of legislation on administrative violations includes the establishment of:
1) general provisions and principles of legislation on administrative violations;
2) list of types of administrative penalties and rules for their application;
3) administrative responsibility for matters of federal importance, including administrative liability for violation of rules and regulations provided for by federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the United States;
4) the procedure for proceedings in cases of administrative violations, including the establishment of measures to ensure proceedings in cases of administrative violations;
5) the order of execution of decisions on the appointment of administrative penalties.
In addition, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the United States, in accordance with the legislation on the judicial system, determines the jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses to courts, in accordance with the legislation on the protection of the rights of minors, determines the jurisdiction of cases of administrative violations to the commissions for the affairs of minors and protection of their character, with the established structure of federal executive bodies determines the jurisdiction of cases on administrative violations to federal bodies Flax power.
The US Administrative Offenses Code provides for two reasons, in the presence of which the person who committed administrative violations, is released from administrative responsibility. Such reasons include: "extreme necessity" (Article 2.7) and "insanity" (Article 2.8).
So, ns is an administrative offense causing the person harm to legally protected interests in a state of extreme necessity, ie. to eliminate the danger directly threatening the person and the rights of this person or other persons, as well as the interests of society or the state protected by law, if this danger could not be eliminated by other means and if the harm done is less significant than the prevented harm.
Thus, in accordance with the above, a person can not be brought to administrative responsibility if he acted in a state of extreme necessity. Analyzing the notion of extreme necessity, it is possible to distinguish three conditions under which an unlawful act is not an administrative offense:
1) Causing harm to legally protected interests to eliminate directly imminent danger, i. The danger must not be imaginary, but real, and not in the future, but at the moment;
2) the danger threatening protected interests could not be eliminated by other means, i.e. It was not possible to elect other protective measures that did not cause harm. The body (official) considering the case, in the light of specific circumstances, must decide whether the commission of an unlawful act was the only opportunity to prevent harm;
3) the harm caused should be less significant than prevented. When assessing the prevented and caused harm, one should take into account the importance of interests that have been protected and which have been violated. Interests related to the life, health of a person are more important than property interests. If it is a matter of property interests, then an evaluation criterion - the cost of the harm of the prevented and caused harm should be applied.
In the presence of all these conditions, the person causing harm to the interests protected by law is recognized as an extreme necessity by the authorized body (official), i.е. is not an offense and does not entail administrative responsibility.
Given the notion of extreme necessity, the US Code of Administrative Offenses does not specify which person is involved. At the same time, it seems that recognition of extreme necessity is possible even in the commission of a wrongful act both by a natural person and a legal entity.
Not subject to administrative responsibility is an individual who, during the commission of unlawful acts (inaction), was in a state of insanity, ie. could not be aware of the actual nature and illegality of their actions (inaction) or manage them due to chronic mental disorder, temporary mental disorder, dementia or other morbid state of mind.
It should be avenged that in this concept there are two criteria for insanity: medical and legal.
The medical criterion of insanity indicates various forms of painful disorders of mental activity. The US Code of Administrative Offenses lists four such forms:
a) chronic mental disorder (ie, when the dynamics of the painful process has a long-term character and a tendency to progress, for example, schizophrenia, epilepsy, manic-depressive psychosis, etc.);b) temporary mental disorder - a short-term disorder of the human psyche flowing quickly and ending with recovery (for example, alcoholic psychosis (white fever), reactive symptomatic conditions, such as pathological affect, ie, a mental disorder caused by a severe mental shock) ; c) dementia is a mental defect manifested in the weakness of the intellect, which can be congenital (oligophrenia) or acquired, as a result of brain changes in various diseases (dementia); d) other morbid state of the psyche - various diseases that are accompanied by a temporary mental disorder, but do not pertain to mental disorders proper.
The legal criterion of insanity is the lack of the ability of a person to realize the actual nature and illegality of his actions (inaction) - an intellectual moment, and guide them - a strong-willed moment.
The body (official), considering the case of an administrative offense, should establish the state of insanity at the time of the offense. To establish this condition, a psychiatric examination is appointed.
It should also be noted that the Administrative Code of the United States provides for the possibility of exemption from administrative responsibility with the insignificance of an administrative offense (Article 2.9).
In case of insignificance of the committed administrative offense, the judge, body, official authorized to resolve the case of an administrative offense, may absolve the person who committed the administrative violation from administrative responsibility and confine himself to an oral observation.
Since in this case, unlike the cases of extreme necessity and insanity, it is not the obligation to establish, but the possibility of the judge, body, official authorized to solve the case of an administrative offense, to release the person who committed the administrative violation from administrative responsibility, then, accordingly, the decision will be made at the discretion of that person. However, in this case, the discretion should be based on taking into account all the circumstances of the commission of the offense, assessing its consequences, the identity of the offender, circumstances mitigating and aggravating responsibility.
Only after assessing the totality of these circumstances, authorized bodies and officials can make a decision on exemption from liability.
The exemption from liability in this case is associated with an oral observation, which the authorized body or official declares to the offender in connection with the committed offense. An oral observation does not entail legal consequences for the infringer, but it shows the inevitability of a state response to unlawful behavior. This measure of educational influence is aimed at ensuring that the person who committed the offense realized the wrongfulness of his behavior and subsequently did not allow such a thing.
A person released from administrative responsibility due to the insignificance of an administrative offense is not considered to be subjected to administrative punishment.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay