Ask a legal professional to answer the question, and ask for the answer to have legal effect. Defini

After July 1, 2012, the commutation of sentences of prisoners who committed crimes before the promulgation of the Eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law must also be implemented in accordance with this provision, and there is no judicial interpretation on the temporal effect of this new provision.

The explanation and explanation of the temporal effect is as follows: "The Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Commutation and Parole Cases" was adopted by the 1532nd meeting of the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court on November 21, 2011, and is hereby promulgated, to take effect on July 1, 2012.

DF Prison Enforcement Division: For the Eighth Amendment to the Penal Code, the commutation of sentences of prisoners who committed crimes before the announcement of the Act is not required to be subject to this provision after July 1, 2012. (FYI, as there is no judicial interpretation of the temporal effect of this new provision, I am basing my previous work experience.) ）

I have not seen a judicial interpretation on the temporal effect of this new provision, but it should be possible to deal with it in accordance with the following provisions:

For acts that occurred before the implementation of the judicial interpretation, there was no relevant judicial interpretation at the time of the act, and cases that have not been handled or are being handled after the implementation of the judicial interpretation are to be handled in accordance with the provisions of the judicial interpretation", that is, the principle of renewal; For conduct that occurred before the implementation of the new judicial interpretation, where there was already a relevant judicial interpretation at the time of the act, it is to be handled in accordance with the judicial interpretation at the time of the act, but where the application of the new judicial interpretation is beneficial to the criminal suspect or defendant, the new judicial interpretation is to be applied", that is, the principle of treating the old with leniency.

The principle on the issue of legal retroactivity: "from the old and from the light".

I believe that this provision should apply the principle that if the old law is beneficial to the defendant, the old law should be applied, and if the new law is beneficial to the defendant, the new law should be applied.

In fact, this question is about the difference between legal norms and legal concepts, and the reason why you are confused is that you have not been able to distinguish the difference between legal norms and legal concepts. In jurisprudence, legal norms generally consist of three elements: assumptions, conditions (handling), and legal consequences (sanctions).

The concept of law is a legal term formed by summarizing the things, states, and behaviors related to law. The first question is actually an explanation of legal concepts, and it adopts the method of extension interpretation, that is, the type of company. You can't deconstruct the three elements of legal norms in this kind of legal provision, and the second question is obviously okay.

If you want to learn the law well, you must be very sensitive to all kinds of concepts, although sometimes it gives people a feeling of chewing words, because the law is related to the realization of various rights of people and the fulfillment of various obligations, so it can only be rigorous.

The technical content of law is mainly the various concepts, terms, and internal logic of law.

Many laws and regulations have both legal normative and technical content. What we usually discern is their legal technical content.

And the first question happens to have no legal normative content, so don't be misled.

The concept of the second question is a concrete solution, that is, a norm

The answer to the second question is incorrect. A should be chosen. Legal provisions can be divided into two categories according to their content. and normative and non-normative legal provisions.

There are two types of normative provisions, legal rules (assumptions, patterns of conduct and legal consequences), and legal principles.

Non-normative provisions are also known as technical provisions of the law, that is, provisions on the terminology of the law, the effective time of the law, etc.

Item A of Question 2 and Item D of Question 1 have the same meaning. It should be the wrong question.

1) Emergency avoidance, no civil liability. Article 129 of the General Principles of the Civil Law: Where damage is caused by emergency avoidance, the person who caused the danger shall bear civil liability.

2) Qi and Zheng. Qi and Zheng were the ones who caused the danger and should bear the loss of ceramics. It is also provided for in Article 129 of the General Principles of the Civil Law.

In addition, the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that if a raised animal causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear civil liability; Where damage is caused by the fault of the victim, the animal keeper or manager shall not bear civil liability; Where damage is caused by the fault of a third party, the third party shall bear civil liability. In the title, it is the third party's fault that causes damage to others caused by the animal raised, so the third party, that is, Qi and Zheng, bear the cost of Mrs. Gao's injury.

Now you buy a house with your own money, counting it as your own personal property.

Because you are divorced, there is no longer a marriage relationship in law, your property is independent, although you are now living together, but it is not a legally recognized marriage relationship, so the law protects your private property, and the house you bought after the divorce is your private property.

The law also stipulates that the property that belongs to you before marriage is not included in the scope of joint property after marriage, unless you have a prenuptial property agreement, and the agreement has an agreement that your respective property before marriage will be included in the scope of common property after marriage, and the prenuptial property agreement between husband and wife is included in the scope of joint property.

Property acquired during the period of cohabitation does not necessarily belong to personal property, and it is better to write an agreement to clarify the property and debt issues so as to avoid future disputes.

You buy a house now, of course, it's your own. There will never be your ex-husband's share.

Since you are divorced, the property you purchased is your personal property after the divorce, and you only need to write your personal name on the title deed. There will be no question of dividing property. Even if you later remarry, it will also be your personal property.