论寻衅滋事罪的立法完善
发布时间：2018-12-08 10:50
【摘要】：1997年刑法废除流氓罪，作为其分解出的五个罪名之一的寻衅滋事罪应运而生。刑法第293条将寻衅滋事行为分为四种类型，，并且将寻衅滋事罪规定为情节犯。然而寻衅滋事罪在司法实践运用过程中出现了种种问题，问题的根源则在于寻衅滋事罪的立法存在诸多缺陷，因此有必要对此罪进行立法完善。 笔者从三个部分对寻衅滋事罪进行了探讨与研究。第一部分，论述寻衅滋事罪的立法现状。这部分主要介绍了寻衅滋事罪现行的相关立法和司法解释的规定以及呈现出的立法特点，并引用两个案例来说明寻衅滋事罪在司法实践中出现的问题。在“温岭虐童案”中，公安机关最初以寻衅滋事罪将颜艳红予以刑事拘留，最后却给予行政拘留处罚。此案说明，缺乏具有现实指导意义的标准来划清有关行为的罪非界限。对于“方舟子遇袭案”，北京市两级法院认定肖传国等人的行为构成寻衅滋事罪，这令人难以信服。此案表明，缺乏具有现实操作意义的标准来标清相关行为的罪间界限。第二部分，论述寻衅滋事罪的立法缺陷。寻衅滋事罪法律条文用词过于抽象和宽泛，对情节的认定缺乏现实指导标准，虽然司法解释以列举的方式规定了情节严重或者恶劣的情形，仍具有模糊性和不完全性。同时，寻衅滋事者实施的场所有何限制，这种场所是否包括网络空间，法律没有明确规定。罚金在寻衅滋事罪适用范围狭窄，不利于打击犯罪；寻衅滋事罪较于流氓罪的刑罚较轻，造成司法实践滥用现象较多，因此有必要调整刑期。同是从流氓罪中分解出来的聚众斗殴罪，规定了致人重伤、死亡的处理方式，而此罪在法条中却没有体现，构成了法律空白。第三部分，论述寻衅滋事罪的立法完善。笔者针对寻衅滋事罪存在的立法缺陷，提出了立法完善的建议。本论文从法益、罪状和入罪标准、罚金的适用范围和刑期、致人重伤死亡的处理方式四个方面提出了立法建议。这些立法建议使本罪更能与时俱进和遵循罪刑法定原则，同时使司法工作者可以做到轻罪轻判、重罪重判、同案同判，从而增强人民对法律的认可度，维护法律的稳定性和权威性。
[Abstract]:In 1997, the criminal law abolished the crime of hooliganism. Article 293 of the Criminal Code classifies the act of provoking and causing trouble into four types, and defines the crime of provoking and causing trouble as a crime of circumstance. However, there are various problems in the judicial practice of the crime of provoking and causing trouble. The root of the problem is that there are many defects in the legislation of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, so it is necessary to perfect the legislation of the crime. The author probes into and studies the crime of provoking and causing trouble in three parts. The first part discusses the legislative status of the crime of provoking trouble. This part mainly introduces the current relevant legislation and the provisions of judicial interpretation of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, and presents the legislative characteristics, and cites two cases to illustrate the problems of the crime of provoking and causing trouble in the judicial practice. In the Wenling Child abuse case, the public security organs initially detained Yan Yanhong for the offence of provoking and causing trouble, but finally imposed administrative detention punishment. The case illustrates the lack of realistic guiding standards to draw a line between the crimes in question. In the case of Fang Zhouzi's attack, the Beijing Municipal Court ruled that the actions of Xiao Chuanguo and others constituted a provocative and troublesome crime, which was hardly convincing. The case shows that there is a lack of practical operational standards to demarcate the boundaries of the relevant acts. The second part discusses the legislative defects of the crime of provoking and causing trouble. The legal provisions of the crime of provoking and causing trouble are too abstract and broad, and lack of realistic guiding standards for the determination of the circumstances, although the judicial interpretation prescribes the serious or bad circumstances in the way of enumeration, which is still vague and incomplete. At the same time, the law does not specify whether such places include cyberspace. The fine is narrow in scope of application in the crime of provoking and causing trouble, which is not conducive to cracking down on the crime; the penalty of the crime of provoking and causing trouble is lighter than that of hooliganism, resulting in more abuse of judicial practice, so it is necessary to adjust the sentence. The crime of affray, which is decomposed from the crime of hooliganism, prescribes the way of dealing with serious injury and death, but this crime is not reflected in the law, which constitutes the blank of the law. The third part discusses the legislative perfection of the crime of provoking quarrels and causing trouble. Aiming at the legislative defects of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, the author puts forward some suggestions to perfect the legislation. In this paper, legislative suggestions are put forward from four aspects: benefit of law, standard of guilt and incrimination, scope of application of fine and sentence, and treatment of death caused by serious injury. These legislative proposals enable this crime to keep pace with the times and abide by the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, and at the same time enable the judicial workers to impose misdemeanours, heavy sentences for felonies, and concurrent sentences, so as to enhance the people's recognition of the law. To maintain the stability and authority of the law.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3
本文编号：2368225
[Abstract]:In 1997, the criminal law abolished the crime of hooliganism. Article 293 of the Criminal Code classifies the act of provoking and causing trouble into four types, and defines the crime of provoking and causing trouble as a crime of circumstance. However, there are various problems in the judicial practice of the crime of provoking and causing trouble. The root of the problem is that there are many defects in the legislation of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, so it is necessary to perfect the legislation of the crime. The author probes into and studies the crime of provoking and causing trouble in three parts. The first part discusses the legislative status of the crime of provoking trouble. This part mainly introduces the current relevant legislation and the provisions of judicial interpretation of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, and presents the legislative characteristics, and cites two cases to illustrate the problems of the crime of provoking and causing trouble in the judicial practice. In the Wenling Child abuse case, the public security organs initially detained Yan Yanhong for the offence of provoking and causing trouble, but finally imposed administrative detention punishment. The case illustrates the lack of realistic guiding standards to draw a line between the crimes in question. In the case of Fang Zhouzi's attack, the Beijing Municipal Court ruled that the actions of Xiao Chuanguo and others constituted a provocative and troublesome crime, which was hardly convincing. The case shows that there is a lack of practical operational standards to demarcate the boundaries of the relevant acts. The second part discusses the legislative defects of the crime of provoking and causing trouble. The legal provisions of the crime of provoking and causing trouble are too abstract and broad, and lack of realistic guiding standards for the determination of the circumstances, although the judicial interpretation prescribes the serious or bad circumstances in the way of enumeration, which is still vague and incomplete. At the same time, the law does not specify whether such places include cyberspace. The fine is narrow in scope of application in the crime of provoking and causing trouble, which is not conducive to cracking down on the crime; the penalty of the crime of provoking and causing trouble is lighter than that of hooliganism, resulting in more abuse of judicial practice, so it is necessary to adjust the sentence. The crime of affray, which is decomposed from the crime of hooliganism, prescribes the way of dealing with serious injury and death, but this crime is not reflected in the law, which constitutes the blank of the law. The third part discusses the legislative perfection of the crime of provoking quarrels and causing trouble. Aiming at the legislative defects of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, the author puts forward some suggestions to perfect the legislation. In this paper, legislative suggestions are put forward from four aspects: benefit of law, standard of guilt and incrimination, scope of application of fine and sentence, and treatment of death caused by serious injury. These legislative proposals enable this crime to keep pace with the times and abide by the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, and at the same time enable the judicial workers to impose misdemeanours, heavy sentences for felonies, and concurrent sentences, so as to enhance the people's recognition of the law. To maintain the stability and authority of the law.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 姚晨;;浅析寻衅滋事罪及相关问题[J];法制与社会;2011年32期
2 李锦阳;刘瑜;;“随意殴打”型寻衅滋事罪的定罪标准浅探[J];法制与社会;2013年12期
3 尹彦品;曾国真;;个案公正与刑法基本原则——兼谈方舟子遇袭案[J];河北法学;2011年08期
4 叶萍;;浅议寻衅滋事犯罪认定中的几个问题[J];河南公安高等专科学校学报;2009年03期
5 戴慈;;区分随意殴打型寻衅滋事罪与故意伤害罪之司法困境与出路[J];安徽警官职业学院学报;2012年02期
6 陈明;;论寻衅滋事中致人重伤、死亡如何定性[J];经济师;2007年04期
7 王志祥;李永亚;;浙江温岭虐童案定性的思考[J];中国检察官;2013年02期
8 李文军;;“虐童行为”刑事立法完善之构想[J];江西警察学院学报;2013年04期
9 高铭暄;梁健;;寻衅滋事罪若干疑难问题探讨[J];人民司法;2008年17期
10 钟丽;范豫;;寻衅滋事罪探析[J];湘潮(下半月);2010年10期
本文编号：2368225
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2368225.html
