群体性事件刑法规制研究

发布时间：2018-05-27 05:28

本文选题：群体性事件 + 刑法规制　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：社会转型时期的我国当下,随着经济体制改革的深入进行和政治体制改革的积极推进,利益格局也在经历着结构性的变化,我国社会结构也出现了相应的深层次改变。在此变化过程中,多种经济矛盾、利益冲突和社会矛盾相互渗透、互相影响,不断助推着我国当下的群体性事件呈现出愈演愈烈的态势。但是,在“维稳”思维的潜意识影响下,相当一部分官员有着对表面稳定的政治偏好、官场处事逻辑的规则依赖倾向,以及选择性执法的嗜好,从而过于强调群体性事件处置的“政治”效果,对群体性事件后续行为中已经构成犯罪的行为,多是采取行政化追责甚至免责的降格处理。这种处治方式,不仅不符合刑事法治的基本要求,而且也会引起不良的社会示范效应,长远来看并不利于群体性事件的法治化规制。对此,刑法只有基于其属于群体性事件依法规制的“必备品”和“慎用品”的合理定位,才能做到既不缺位又不越位的合理适时介入。通过刑法的“善治”,让群体性事件参与者既感受到刑法的“温情”、又体验到刑法的“威严”,充分发挥刑法既保障人权又化解冲突的法律功能,最终实现群体性事件刑法规制的良善目的。基于此,对群体性事件刑法规制的正当性和规制现状进行深入探讨和系统梳理,对群体性事件刑法规制的缺陷和完善路径进行系统总结和深入探究,从而为群体性事件刑法规制相关规范的日臻完善和有效实施,提供理论参考和策略借鉴,尤显必要。除绪论和结语之外,全文共分五章,共约21余万字。第一章,群体性事件概说。对于群体性事件的刑法规制进行研究,首先应对群体性事件的概念、属性、类型、成因和发生过程以及近年来的发展态势有一个较为清晰的了解和把握。首先,该章分别从语言学、政治学、社会学、犯罪学和刑法学的视域对群体性事件的概念进行了详细阐释和界定。该章界定的刑法学上的“群体性事件”概念为,因某种社会矛盾和某些虚假信息而引发的,由三人以上的部分人员聚众共同实施的违反国家法律法规的串联、聚集、游行、围堵、冲击、哄抢、聚众滋事或械斗的骚乱等严重扰乱社会秩序、危害公共安全,甚至是“打、砸、抢”等严重侵犯公民人身安全和公私财产安全的集群行为。其次,对群体性事件的政治属性、社会属性和法律属性进行了详细说明和论述。我国大多数的群体性事件在政治上的基本属性属于人民内部矛盾；在社会视角的基本属性是社会结构本身一个不可回避的正常现象,并且蕴含着一定的社会冲突的功能；在群体性事件与法之关系的视角上看,群体性事件的法律属性是一个动态的、变化的和立体的价值评判问题,存在着合法事件、一般违法事件、治安事件和刑事事件四种可能的法律属性状态。再次,对群体性事件的类型、成因和发生过程进行了分析和论证。一是刑法规制视野下的群体性事件可以分为良性群体性事件、中性群体性事件和恶性群体性事件,针对三种类型的群体性事件,刑法的规制介入应该分别保持消极、谦抑和积极的规制态度,方能有利于群体性事件刑法规制的善治实现；二是群体性事件的成因既有政治原因也有经济原因,既有社会原因也有传媒原因,另外还有法治原因,该类群体性事件的成因决定刑法关于群体性事件的介入和干预必须保持自身的谦抑底限；三是群体性事件的发生过程一般具有孕育阶段、准备或酝酿阶段、发生阶段、扩大阶段和激化变异或萎缩消解阶段,不同的群体性事件所经历不同的阶段情况决定具体群体性事件不同的法律属性,进而决定刑法规制群体性事件的介入态度或干预程度。最后,就近年来我国群体性事件的发展态势进行了系统总结和概括,由于经济矛盾、利益分化和社会冲突等综合社会问题的错综复杂,导致当下我国的群体性事件呈现出“诱因日趋复杂、数量不断攀升、规模不断扩大、危害后果严重、控制难度加大”的发展态势。第二章,群体性事件刑法规制的正当性。面对当下我国群体性事件愈演愈烈的发展态势,刑法的规制是否有其必要性和可行性,以及介入干预的程度,是针对群体性事件刑法规制正当性探讨之必要。该章先是从论证群体性事件刑法规制的必要性入手,接着进一步阐释了群体性事件刑法规制的可行性,最后从群体性事件刑法规制的谦抑性角度,分析论证要遵循群体性事件刑法干预程度的适当,才能确保群体性事件刑法规制的正当。无论是从群体性事件严重社会危害结果的现实出发,还是基于对群体性事件社会心理控制需要的考虑,群体性事件的刑法规制均有其必要性。行为不法实质根据的行为功利主义刑法观和规则功利主义刑法观的刑法学理论,为群体性事件刑法规制的可行性提供了理论基础；现行刑法典和相关刑事司法解释等有关群体性事件所涉犯罪的部分具体规定,为其提供了规范基础。刑为盛世不能废、亦为盛世所不能尚。面对群体性事件的日渐频发和高涨,刑法的介入和干预尽管不能过于无为甚至是退让；然而,由于刑法必须明确正确处理自由与安全冲突的提前是坚守刑法的谦抑,群体性事件的刑法规制必须坚守刑法谦抑的基本立场不被动摇或突破,要求群体性事件的刑法干预不能与一般聚众犯罪的刑法打击同等对待和处理。这是由于群体性事件事发根源的社会原因、经济原因、政治原因及其传媒原因和法治原因所决定,是由于群体性事件的人民内部矛盾性、法律属性的多样性、法律评价的平面性和终端性以及刑法介入的限制性所要求。由于群体性事件刑法规制的适用效果不仅仅是单单体现在刑法适用的法律效果上,更重要的是体现在刑法对于群体性事件规制的政治效果和社会效果上。故此,关于群体性事件刑法介入的限制性,应在刑法介入群体性事件的事件性质方面进行限制适用；在群体性事件适用刑法的事件参与主体方面进行限制；在群体性事件规制的法律适用方面,应坚持“民行优先、刑法最后”的法律适用原则,对于群体性事件的刑法干预进行最后适用限制。第三章,群体性事件刑法规制的现状。我国现行刑法并没有关于群体性事件的专门规定和罪名,但是,刑法中的共同犯罪、首要分子、转化犯等有关理论以及刑法分则中规定的多数聚众犯罪,均可以应用到群体性事件刑法规制的司法实践中去。首先,该章对我国现行刑事法规和附属刑法中关于群体性事件所涉犯罪的有关规定进行了梳理和总结。然后,对群体性事件所涉犯罪的相关刑事司法原则和群体性事件与共同犯罪、聚众犯罪等相互之间的联系与区别进行了分析,对群体性事件相关行为涉及罪与非罪的界限问题进行了尝试性的研究和探讨。接着,该章以群体性事件所涉犯罪的首要分子之认定、积极参加者之认定和其它参加者之认定为切入点,对群体性事件所涉犯罪的主体责任之承担问题进行了重点研究。在认定该类首要分子时,一是要注意区分群体性事件所涉聚众犯罪的首要分子与主犯之间的羁绊,群体性事件所涉聚众犯罪的首要分子不一定都是主犯,群体性事件所涉聚众犯罪的主犯也不一定仅指首要分子,二者既有交叉之处也有不同的地方；群体性事件所涉聚众犯罪的首要分子一般情况下都是主犯,但也有可能是从犯；群体性事件所涉聚众犯罪的主犯除首要分子以外,还有其它积极实施实行行为的行为人。二是不应仅拘泥于形式上的称谓,而应关注其在涉刑群体性事件中是否真正所起到组织、领导、策划的作用,结合其作用、地位和影响来综合考量。在认定该类积极参加者时,重点考虑参加者在群体性事件相关涉众犯罪中的参与热情和对犯罪所起作用大小,结合相关涉众犯罪的前后情状,综合判定。在认定该类其它参加者时,如果其参与是基于被欺骗或胁迫等情形而参加且其参与情节又较轻的情况下,对其应适当依法从轻或减轻处罚、甚至不予刑事处罚。最后,对于群体性事件所涉转化犯的厘定和共犯脱离问题进行分析研究。对于群体性事件所涉犯罪的首要分子和积极参加者是否属于转化犯的主体,不能搞一刀切,而应结合共同犯罪中的实行过限理论具体问题具体认定,综合考量。对于群体性事件所涉犯罪的共犯脱离问题,应采取共犯脱离标准的因果关系切断说,从该类共犯行为人是否基于物理因果性和心理因果性的维度,切断自身行为与群体性事件相关犯罪的因果性,来考量是否减免其刑事责任。第四章,群体性事件刑法规制的缺陷。现行刑法对群体性事件的规制,无论是在刑法学理论层面,还是在刑事立法领域,均存在着一定的缺陷和不足之处。该章从理论制度和立法规范两个维度,对群体性事件刑法规制的缺陷进行总结和概括。由于群体性事件后续行为演化的相关犯罪与现行刑法中规定的聚众犯罪,无论是在发生原因、犯罪动机或危害结果上,还是在处置后的政治效果、社会效果或法律效果上,均有诸多不同之处。聚众犯罪并不是为了群体性事件的刑法规制而设置,群体性事件也并不都表现为聚众犯罪,部分典型的聚众犯罪也与群体性事件并无任何关涉。基于此,应用处治聚众犯罪的传统司法参照维度进行群体性事件的刑法规制,难免会有捉襟见肘之窘迫。这些捉襟见肘的不足之处表现在：一方面,表现在群体性事件刑法规制的原则缺失和我国刑法体系中轻罪制度的缺失,以及传统“定性”加“定量”的犯罪概念界定模式；另一方面,表现在群体性事件概念的刑事立法缺失和“趋群体性”行为刑法规制的立法缺失,以及与群体性事件相关的编谣传谣行为刑法规制的立法缺失。尤其是刑事立法关于群体性事件概念界定的空白,直接影响到2013年9月6日最高人民法院、最高人民检察院《关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第3条的有效适用。第五章,群体性事件刑法规制的完善。基于群体性事件的刑法规制在理论层面和立法规范方面存在的缺陷。为了群体性事件刑法规制的日臻完善,该章从理论完善和立法完善两个视角,提出“丰富刑法轻罪理论、完善刑法立法规范、创新刑法解决机制”的群体性事件刑法规制完善路径。首先,确立“坚守刑法谦抑、审慎司法延展,捍卫罪责原则、兼顾安全例外,秉承严而不厉、适度行政扩张,坚持依法而治、警惕依政施治”的群体性事件刑法规制基本原则。其次,建构群体性事件刑法规制的轻罪制度,完善轻罪制度下的刑罚配置,改革“定性”加“定量”综合界定犯罪概念前提下“重罪”文化的“犯罪人”标签效应。再次,在刑法总则第五章的“其它规定”内容中增设“群体性事件的含义”的刑法条文,明确群体性事件概念的界定。另外,在建构群体性事件刑法规制轻罪制度的前提下,建构“趋群体性”行为的刑法规制体系。将与群体性事件发生或事态升级紧密相关的先期煽动、纠集行为,和群体性事件后续行为尚未演变为聚众犯罪前的发生过程中的一些教唆围攻、冲击或打、砸、抢行为,以及群体性事件事态严重恶化情势下的聚众拒不解散行为等“趋群体性”行为,纳入群体性事件刑法规制的轻罪犯罪圈,增设“聚众拒不解散罪”。最后,完善关于群体性事件相关编谣传谣行为的刑事立法规制结构。将对于企图促使群体性事件发生、扩大甚至是激化的相应编谣、传谣行为的刑事规制,上升到刑事立法的规范地位；将传播虚假信息引发群体性事件且严重扰乱社会秩序的虚假传播行为,纳入群体性事件刑法规制的轻罪规制视野。在刑法分则第六章第一节的“扰乱公共秩序罪”中,独立设置“编造、故意传播虚假信息罪”。
[Abstract]:In the period of social transformation, with the deepening of the reform of the economic system and the active promotion of the reform of the political system, the structure of interests has also undergone structural changes, and the social structure of our country has also undergone a corresponding deep change. In the process of this change, various economic contradictions, conflicts of interest and social contradictions permeate each other, and each other is permeated with each other. However, under the influence of the subconscious mind of "maintaining stability", a considerable number of officials have a political preference for the stability of the surface, the tendency to rely on the rules of the officialdom logic, and the preference for the choice of law enforcement, so as to overemphasize the place of mass events. The "political" effect, which has already formed a crime in the follow-up behavior of group events, is mostly the reduction of administrative responsibility and even disclaimer, which not only does not conform to the basic requirements of the rule of law in criminal law, but also causes bad social demonstration effect, which is not conducive to the rule of law of group events in the long run. According to the "good governance" in criminal law, the participants of the criminal law can not only feel the "warmth of the criminal law", but also experience the "prestige" of the criminal law. "Strict", give full play to the legal function of the criminal law not only to protect human rights but also to dissolve the conflict, and to finally realize the good purpose of the criminal law regulation of mass incidents. Based on this, this paper makes a thorough discussion and systemically combing the legitimacy and regulation status of the criminal law regulation of mass incidents, and systematically summarizes the defects and the perfect path of the criminal law regulation of group events. And in-depth exploration, thus providing a theoretical reference and strategy reference for the improvement and effective implementation of relevant norms of criminal law regulation of group incidents.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the full text is divided into five chapters, a total of about 21 million words.
In the first chapter, a general introduction to group events. For the study of the criminal law regulation of group events, first, we should have a clear understanding and grasp of the concept, attribute, type, cause and process of group events and the development trend in recent years. First, this chapter is from linguistics, politics, sociology, Criminology and criminal law, respectively. The concept of group events is explained and defined in the field of view. The concept of "mass event" in the chapter of criminal jurisprudence in this chapter is caused by a certain social contradiction and certain false information, which is carried out in series, gathering, parade, encirclement, impact, and rob in violation of national laws and regulations because of some kind of social contradiction and certain false information. It is a cluster behavior that seriously disrupts social order, endangers public security, even "hit, smash, grab" and so on seriously infringe on the personal safety of citizens and the security of public and private property. Secondly, the political attribute, social attribute and legal nature of the group events are explained and discussed in detail. The basic attribute of the sexual event in politics belongs to the internal contradictions of the people; the basic attribute of the social perspective is an unavoidable normal phenomenon in the social structure itself, and contains a certain function of social conflict. In the perspective of the relationship between the group events and the law, the legal attributes of the group events are dynamic and change. There are four possible legal attributes of legal events, general illegal events, public order events and criminal events. Again, the types, causes and process of group events are analyzed and demonstrated. One is that the group events in the vision of criminal law can be divided into benign group events, Neutral group events and malignant group events, aiming at three types of group events, the regulation intervention of criminal law should maintain negative, modest and positive regulation, which can be beneficial to the good governance of the criminal law regulation of group events; the two is that the cause of group events has both political and economic reasons, and the society has both social and economic reasons. There are also the reasons for the media, as well as the reasons for the rule of law. The causes of the group events determine that the intervention and intervention of the criminal law about group events must keep their own modest limits; three, the process of the occurrence of group events generally has the inoculation stage, the stage of preparation or brewing, the stage of occurrence, the expansion stage and the intensification of variation or atrophy. In the elimination stage, the different stages of the group events determine the different legal attributes of the specific group events, and then determine the intervention attitude or the degree of intervention by the criminal law to regulate the group events. Finally, the development trend of the group events in China has been systematically summarized and summarized in recent years, because of the economic contradictions and interests. The complex social problems, such as differentiation and social conflict, lead to the development trend of the current group events in China, which are "increasingly complex, increasing number, expanding scale, serious consequences and increasing control difficulty".
The second chapter, the legitimacy of the criminal law regulation of mass events. Facing the growing trend of the current group events in China, whether the regulation of criminal law has its necessity and feasibility, and the degree of intervention intervention, it is necessary to discuss the legitimacy of the criminal regulation of mass incidents. The chapter first is to demonstrate the criminal regulation of mass incidents. Starting with the necessity, then further explains the feasibility of the criminal law regulation of group events, and finally, from the point of view of the modesty of criminal law regulation of group events, it is necessary to analyze and demonstrate the proper degree of criminal law intervention in group events so as to ensure the proper regulation of the criminal law of group events. On the basis of the reality of the fruit, or based on the consideration of the social psychological control of group events, the criminal law of group events has its necessity. The criminal law theory of the behavioral utilitarianism and the rule utilitarianism, which is not the essence of the law, provides the theoretical basis for the feasibility of the criminal law regulation of mass events. The present criminal code and the relevant criminal judicial interpretations, such as the specific provisions concerning the crime involved in mass incidents, provide a standard basis for it. Punishment can not be abolished in the prosperous world, but also for the prosperity of the world. In the face of the increasing frequency and rise of mass events, the intervention and intervention of the criminal law can not be too inactive or even a retreat, however, however, Because the criminal law must make it clear and correct to deal with the conflict of freedom and security in advance is to stick to the modesty of the criminal law. The criminal law regulation of mass incidents must stick to the basic position of the criminal law and not be shaken or broken. It requires that the criminal law intervention of mass incidents cannot be treated and dealt with with the penalty law of the general public. This is due to the group. The social, economic, political, and media reasons and the reasons for the rule of law of the source of physical events are determined by the contradictions among the people, the diversity of the legal attributes, the plane and terminal of the legal evaluation and the restriction of the intervention of the criminal law. The effect is not only reflected in the legal effect applicable to the criminal law, but also on the political and social effects of the criminal law on the regulation of mass events. Therefore, the restrictive nature of the criminal law intervention for group events should be limited to the nature of the incident in the criminal law. The event is applicable to the subject of the criminal law. In the legal application of the regulation of mass incidents, the principle of "the priority of the people's Bank and the end of the criminal law" should be adhered to, and the final application of the criminal law intervention for group events should be limited.
The third chapter, the current situation of the criminal law regulation of mass incidents. There is no special provisions and charges on mass incidents in the current criminal law of China. However, the common crime in the criminal law, the principal elements, the transformation offenders and other related theories as well as the majority of the crime stipulated in the criminal law can be applied to the judicial practice of the criminal law regulation of group events. First, this chapter reviews and summarizes the relevant provisions of the current criminal law and criminal law related to mass incidents in our country, and then analyzes the relations and differences between the criminal judicial principles of the crime involved in the mass incidents, the mass incidents, the common crime and the crowd crime. On the basis of the identification of the principal elements of the crime involved in the group events, the identification of the active participants and the identification of the other participants as the breakthrough point, the issue of the subject responsibility of the crime involved in the mass event is carried out. In the determination of the principal elements of the class, one should pay attention to the distinction between the principal criminals involved in the mass crime and the fetters of the principal offenders. The principal criminals involved in the mass crime involving mass incidents are not necessarily the principal offenders, and the principal criminals involved in the mass crime are not necessarily only the primary elements, the two are both committed. There are also different places in the fork; the principal criminals involved in the mass crime are generally the principal offender, but it may also be an accessory; the principal offender involved in the mass crime involved in the mass event, except for the principal elements, has other actors to actively carry out the act. Two Pay attention to whether it really plays the role of organization, leadership, planning, and its role, status and influence in the mass incidents involving criminal punishment. When the other participants of the class are identified, if their participation is based on the circumstances of being deceived or coerced and their participation in the circumstances is relatively light, they should be given a light or mitigated punishment and even no criminal punishment in accordance with the law. Finally, the determination of the conversion offense involved in the group event and the separation of the accomplice are made. The main elements of the crime involved in the group event and whether the active participant belongs to the subject of the transformative offense, we should not make one size fits all, but combine the specific problems of the implementation limit theory in the joint crime, and make a comprehensive consideration. For the disengagement of the accomplice of the crime involved in the group event, we should take the accomplice. The causality off the standard says whether the perpetrator of the class is based on the dimensions of physical causality and psychological causality, cutting off the causality of the crimes related to their own behavior and group events to consider whether to reduce their criminal responsibility.
The fourth chapter, the defects of the criminal law regulation of mass incidents. There are some defects and shortcomings in the regulation of the group events in the criminal law, both in the theoretical and the criminal legislation. This chapter sums up the defects in the criminal law regulation of group events from the two dimensions of the theoretical system and the legislative norms. As a result of the related crime of the evolution of the follow-up behavior of group events and the crime of gathering in the current criminal law, there are many differences in the cause, the motive of the crime or the result of the harm, the political effect after the disposal, the social effect or the legal effect. The crime of gathering the crowd is not for the criminal law of the group event. As a result, the group events are not all manifested in the crime of gathering, and some typical crimes are not related to the group events. Based on this, it is unavoidable to apply the traditional judicial reference dimension to the criminal law regulation of mass incidents. Now, on the one hand, it is manifested in the absence of the principle of penal regulation in group incidents and the absence of misdemeanor system in our criminal law system, as well as the traditional "qualitative analysis".
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D631.43;D924.3

【参考文献】