在司法解释中，行政处罚记录和前科发挥的定罪量刑功能共有五种：入罪功能、加重处罚功能、推定存在主观恶性之证据功能、从重处罚功能以及限制从轻、减轻处罚（含不起诉）功能。前述五种功能在规定本身与实践方面存在共同问题：前者包括总体概况凌乱、条件设定混乱以及功能设定缺乏章法；后者包括辅助制度与措施不完善、行政执法公正性欠缺以及刑事司法与行政执法衔接混乱。入罪功能和加重处罚功能的本质是行政处罚记录和前科反映的人身危险性起到提升不法评价作用，体现主观主义色彩，与行为刑法立场存在张力，受到理论质疑。尽管如此，行政处罚记录和前科反映的人身危险性提升不法评价的功能在司法实践中仍普遍化发展。其主要根源在于现实必要性考量，即风险社会背景下刑法之预防性转向提出了扩大犯罪圈的要求，以及我国现行惩罚体系存在刑法内、外的处罚漏洞需填补。在具备现实必要性的基础上，该做法也具有合理性，根本理由在于“人身危险性提升不法”非“人身危险性决定不法”，前者是以客观主义为根本兼顾主观主义的构建，与客观主义的基本立场并不冲突。另外，主观主义存在合理成分与积极价值，应理性对待，且“人身危险性提升不法”之功能在我国以客观主义为基本原则的理论框架中也能找到妥当的定位。最后，行政处罚记录与前科的定罪量刑功能在理论上与立法上都可作为对累犯制度的补充，可使累犯制度更为精细化。对于五种功能共有的规定本身之问题和实践之问题可分别从全面梳理与规范相关规定以及全面建设与完善辅助制度两个方面缓解、处理。前者包括前行为严格限定为同种行为、处罚类型严格限定为行政处罚和刑事处罚、时间与次数规定上尽可能统一以及功能规定表述上尽可能规范；后者包括建立、健全违法、犯罪记录与查询制度，加快、加强行刑衔接信息平台建设，尝试完善人身危险性评估制度以及确立并完善刑事司法中对前置行政行为的审查限度。入罪功能和加重处罚功能与现行理论通说存在紧张关系，有必要对其适用范围、作用强度加以规范和限制，具体措施包括适用范围总体上应限于法定刑较为轻缓的故意犯罪之中；前行为、后行为的认定都应严格以保护法益为指导；曾受行政处罚之界定以补充性原则为指导；行政处罚和前科不得单独发挥前述功能且折抵罪量份额应限制在较低范围；至少在入罪前最后一次行政处罚告知再犯入罪以保障违法性认识。

In judicial interpretations, administrative penalty records and prior convictions serve five functions: the function of criminalization, the function of aggravation of punishment, the function of presuming the existence of evidence of subjective malice, the function of severe punishment, and the function of restricting mitigating and lessening of punishment (including the function of non-prosecution). These five functions share common problems in the provisions themselves and in practice: the former includes a disorganized general overview, confusing conditions, and a lack of rules and regulations in the setting of the functions; the latter includes imperfect auxiliary systems and measures, a lack of fairness in administrative law enforcement, and confusion in the interface between criminal justice and administrative law enforcement. The essence of the incriminating and aggravating functions is that the personal danger reflected in administrative penalty records and previous convictions serves to enhance the evaluation of wrongdoing, reflecting subjectivism and tension with the position of behavioral criminal law, which has been questioned by theories.Nonetheless, the function of enhancing the evaluation of wrongfulness as reflected in administrative penalty records and prior convictions has been generalized and developed in judicial practice. This is mainly due to practical necessity, the preventive shift of the criminal law in the context of risky society has put forward the requirement of expanding the circle of crime, and the existing punishment system of our country has the loopholes to be filled in the criminal law, both inside and outside of the punishment. On the basis of practical necessity, the practice also has the rationality, the fundamental reason is that "personal danger to enhance the unlawfulness" rather than "personal danger to determine the unlawfulness", the former is based on the objectivism as the root of the construction of the subjectivism, and the objectivism of the basic position is not in conflict. The former is a construction of subjectivism based on objectivism, which is not in conflict with the basic position of objectivism. In addition, there are reasonable components and positive value of subjectivism, should be treated rationally, and "personal danger to enhance the unlawful" function in our country to objectivism as the basic principle of the theoretical framework can be found in the appropriate position. Finally, the administrative penalty record and the conviction and sentencing function of previous convictions can be used as a supplement to the recidivism system both theoretically and legislatively, which can make the recidivism system more refined.For the five functions shared by the provisions of the problem itself and the practice of the problem can be comprehensively sorted out and standardize the relevant provisions as well as comprehensively build and improve the auxiliary system to alleviate, deal with two aspects. The former includes strictly limiting the former acts to the same kind of acts, strictly limiting the types of punishment to administrative and criminal penalties, being as uniform as possible in terms of time and number of times, and being as standardized as possible in terms of the expression of the functional provisions; the latter includes the establishment and improvement of the system of records and inquiries on violations and crimes, the speeding up and strengthening of the construction of information platforms for the connection between the execution of penalties and the attempts to improve the system of assessing the danger to the person, as well as the establishment and improvement of limits of reviewing the previous administrative behavior in criminal justice. The functions of incrimination and aggravated punishment are in tension with the existing theory, and it is necessary to regulate and limit their scope of application and intensity of action, with specific measures including that the scope of application should be limited in general to intentional crimes with relatively lenient legal penalties; that the identification of antecedent and subsequent acts should be guided strictly by the protection of the legal interests; that the definition of having been subjected to administrative punishment should be guided by the principle of complementarity; and that the administrative punishment and the antecedent should not be used alone to perform the aforementioned functions and should be discounted in favor of the previous one. Administrative penalties and previous convictions should not perform the aforementioned functions alone and the share of the offsetting amount should be limited to a low range; at least the last administrative penalty prior to conviction should inform the recidivist of the conviction in order to safeguard the perception of unlawfulness.