Abstract:The passive Responsibilism,"nulla poena sine culpa",is a commonly agreed criminal principle and the basic requirement of human rights.Penalty measurement concerns the protection of the human rights of defendants and even the general human rights condition in a country,thus the Point theory of penalty measurement,which is the inevitable conclusion of the passive Responsibilism,should be adopted.According to the Point theory,criminal responsibility determines the toplimit of a punishment.Only under this point can judges consider the necessity of crime prevention.The opinion and its practice of measuring penalty beyond the toplimit decided by responsibility for the necessity of crime prevention or sentencing a heavier punishment under the responsibility—decided penalty (point) for the needs of general prevention not only go against Responsibilism,but also violate defendants' dignity. In fact,synthesis idealism calls for a balance between responsibility—related and prevention —related punishment and judges need to tell which one is influenced by a special plot,because prevention—related plots can be only considered under responsibility—decided penalty (point). The principle of suiting punishment to crime,which is interpreted as heavy punishment fits heavy offense and light punishment fits minor offense,is just for responsibility—decided penalty,not for declaratory penalty.As to declaratory punishment,such principle should be applied asymmetrically. Namely,in accordance with the Point theory,this principle means only that a punishment can not exceed the responsibility—decided toplimit.In this way,although this principle can be interpreted as light punishment fits minor offense,a heavy penalty does not always follow a heavy crime.On the contrary,a light punishment may be sentenced considering minor needs of prevention, even if a heavy crime is accused.To put it bluntly,the principle of suiting punishment to crime permits a sentence under responsibility—decided penalty (point). Neither Current criminal theories guiding discussion on the criterion and method of penalty measurement nor the judicial practice insisting on the normalization of penalty measurement fully consist with Responsibilism.For criminal theory and practice,the highest priority is to carry out Responsibilism in the theory and practice of penalty measurement.

On Appropriateness Doctrine

A Comparative Study of the Rule of Reasonableness and the Principle of Proportionality

On the Judgement of Public Interests of Administrative Requisition

The Contact Point and Difference between the Principle of Prohibition of Excessively Abundant Restriction and the Principle of Prohibition of Excessively Deficient Protection as Constitutional Principles

The Basic Modification Direction of The Administrative Procedure Law——Discussing Article 1 of The Administrative Procedure Law

A Comparative Study of the Application of the Doctrine of Prosecuting Discretion in Japan,Germany and China

Restatement on the Legislative Purpose of Administrative Reconsideration

Dilemma of Application of the Principle of Necessity and the Way Out of It

The Functional Propriety as the Principle of Distribution of the State Powers:Focussing on the German Constitutional Jurisprudence

Principle of proportionality as a threat to criminal-law-related fundamental rights

The greater good?: issues of proportionality and democracy in the doctrine of necessity as applied in Re A

Applicability of Principle of Good Faith in Civil Action

On the Principle of Objective and Considerate Obligation

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

A Study on Legal Attributes of Necessity Defense

The Public Deciding Force of Administrative Action and Impairment of Public Affairs

Responsibilism and the Doctrine of Penalty Measurement

An Administrative Law Look at Analogy

The Principle of Integrating Subjectivity and Objectivity:Examination from both Deontology and Methodology

What Is“ublic Interest”--The Utilitarian Definition and Its Constitutional Limitations

On Identiifcation Criteria of Regulatory Taking--Centering on German and American Theories and Their Judicial Precedents