The pace of revision of the State compensation law needs to be greater

The commentator of Nanfang Daily canceled the "Administrative confirmation" link of self-incrimination in state compensation, unblocked the compensation channel and accelerated the process of compensation. However, the State compensation system unilaterally emphasizes the state's liability for compensation, dilutes and even makes no mention of the punishment means of the responsible person, and takes the taxpayer's money to make up some naïve, low-level and outrageous mistakes.　　These questions and answers are probably not and should not be avoided by anyone. At the 11th meeting of the NPC Standing Committee, many legal amendments were considered and the draft amendment to the National Compensation law, which was concerned by public opinion, was considered for the third time. "In view of the present situation, the draft amendment has been perfected." The review was only an adjustment to individual words and the possibility of its adoption was very high. "One of the drafters of the National Compensation Law, Professor Ma Waide, vice president of China University of Political Science and political science, said during the interview.　　In this view, the draft amendment will eventually emerge from the expectations of many academics who are "fully revised". The State Compensation law was formally implemented on January 1, 1995 and was hailed as "a milestone in the construction of China's rule of law" and became an important embodiment of the state's respect for and protection of human rights. "Hubei Lin Case" and "Henan Jing Jinan case" is called the National Compensation Law implementation in the last 15 years the most famous case of state compensation. Over the years, however, the law has been on the march of controversy. When the standard of State compensation is too low, the scope is too narrow, the formalities are cumbersome and the compensation is inferior, the design of the compensation procedure must require the administrative organ to "self-incrimination" and other logic problems, which often make the function of respecting and protecting human rights become looming and vague. It should be said that there are many bright spots in the draft amendment to the defects exposed by the current legislation. First, the draft expands the scope of the obligation to compensate for criminal compensation, the detention center will also be included in the scope of compensation, secondly, mental damage will be included in the scope of State compensation for the first time, and the injury to the victim's personal rights should be affirmed; again, the standard of State compensation is refined; The draft emphasizes timely compensation for victims　　A maximum of 22 days is available for national compensation. It is worth mentioning that the draft changes the principle of liability, compensation is not "illegal" as a prerequisite, the flow of compensation channels, the relevant authorities no longer need to "self-incrimination." In the past, whether the victim can get the state compensation, and the relevant authorities are closely related to the mistake. In accordance with the current state compensation law, the victims of State organs and State organs violate the rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations in violation of their right to do so. The "principle of illegality" in the provision makes some cases, even though the legal process is not wrong, are wrong and the victims are not compensated.　　Moreover, such a fault must be confirmed by the State organs themselves, but experience has repeatedly confirmed that at present, some departments to admit their mistakes is really not the general difficulty. Canceling the "Administrative confirmation" link of self-incrimination in state compensation, unblocked the compensation channel and accelerated the process of compensation. But they have to add new concerns. The State compensation system emphasizes unilaterally the state's liability for compensation and dilutes even theNo mention of the means of punishment has long been criticized. Now the State compensation and the State organ of the fault decoupling, will let some places, some departments even if the wrong is silent, or the original procedure on the existence of fault, but understatement as "result of fault", some should be for their own authority or not to be responsible for the responsibility of people to 遁迹 before. In the High-profile case of Cao County, De Lei to "a report letter to the leadership of the Provincial committee" and other headlines, Cao County Procuratorate to the District people's Court to prosecute for defamation, more detained for up to 150 days, the final media exposure, once again proved the extreme absurdity of the libel case. And De Lei won the state compensation 16798.5 yuan. State compensation, in the final analysis of all taxpayers ' money, this kind of funny "people because of words convicted, the official caught the" farce has repeatedly staged, is happy.　　With taxpayers ' money to make up for these childish, low-level and outrageous mistakes, and the cost of living is too high, shouldn't anyone be held responsible? From a scholar's point of view, Ma Waide hope that the pace of change can be more, "not to do an amendment, but a comprehensive revision." From the actual needs and the people's position, it is not so? Although the amendment may not be one-step in the light of the practical feasibility of the amendment, some questions, some answers, I am afraid no one can and should not avoid.