【摘要】：我國(guó)在1997年之前是沒有尋釁滋事罪的,其是由流氓罪演變而來的。流氓罪是1979年《刑法》中規(guī)定的,1997年《刑法》修訂時(shí),將流氓罪廢除了,流氓罪演變出多個(gè)罪名,其中尋釁滋事罪便是其中之一;2011年2月25日,《刑法修正案(八)》通過,其中第四十條對(duì)尋釁滋事罪做了修改,增加了一條“糾集他人多次實(shí)施前款行為的”,且刑法處罰更為嚴(yán)厲;2013年9月10日,兩高出臺(tái)了《關(guān)于辦理利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)實(shí)施誹謗等刑事案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》,將尋釁滋事罪的適用范圍擴(kuò)大到網(wǎng)絡(luò)領(lǐng)域,以及如何處罰的情形。尋釁滋事罪從無到有,從不完善到逐步完善,這一系列的變化可以看出,尋釁滋事罪在完善,立法在完善。近年來,以尋釁滋事罪定罪處罰的案件越來越多。但是本罪犯罪構(gòu)成十分抽象,在使用的時(shí)候缺乏具體標(biāo)準(zhǔn)從而導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐之中認(rèn)定存在著不規(guī)范的現(xiàn)象。1979年刑法中的流氓罪被稱為“口袋罪”,正是因?yàn)樵谒痉▽?shí)踐中缺乏具體的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),導(dǎo)致了濫用,所以將該罪取消了,以其他罪名代替。尋釁滋事罪是流氓罪分解出來的罪名之一,但對(duì)此罪的差評(píng)并不比流氓罪少。一個(gè)罪名的內(nèi)涵和外延都沒有標(biāo)準(zhǔn),那么其也將注定淪為“口袋罪”。尋釁滋事罪也正式因?yàn)槿绱?在司法實(shí)踐中被稱為最難以認(rèn)定和適用的,該罪直接被認(rèn)定為“口袋罪”。正因?yàn)槿绱?當(dāng)前理論學(xué)界對(duì)于尋釁滋事罪的存廢存在爭(zhēng)論,即廢止說和保留說兩大類。廢止說的大多數(shù)學(xué)者均是基于尋釁滋事罪的犯罪構(gòu)成規(guī)定不明確,導(dǎo)致與其他罪名的行為方式界限不清,司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)認(rèn)定困難,主張將尋釁滋事罪予以廢除,該罪的四種行為類型分解到刑法中已有的其他相關(guān)罪名中。而保留說的學(xué)者認(rèn)為,尋釁滋事罪在我國(guó)的刑法體系中具有補(bǔ)充的性質(zhì),其存在與發(fā)展方向與我國(guó)當(dāng)前寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)的刑事政策相吻合,其存在有合理性和必要性,對(duì)于司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的問題可以做出合理的解釋,不應(yīng)該將其廢除。隨著1997年確定的罪刑法定原則不斷深入人心,以及法律的不斷完善,人們對(duì)罪名罪狀的相對(duì)精確度要求越來越高,理論界與司法界要求廢止或取消尋釁滋事罪的呼聲未曾停止過。但是,我國(guó)是一個(gè)成文法國(guó)家,在現(xiàn)行法律未被修改或作出有權(quán)解釋之前,他的權(quán)威性應(yīng)該堅(jiān)決被維護(hù)。在本文中,筆者試圖闡述國(guó)內(nèi)外立法的相關(guān)情況,分析尋釁滋事罪存在的原因以及本身的特征,證實(shí)該罪在我國(guó)存在的合理性和必要性。
[Abstract]:Before 1997, there was no crime of provoking and causing trouble in our country, which evolved from the crime of hooliganism. The crime of hooliganism is stipulated in the Criminal Law of 1979. When the Criminal Law was amended in 1997, the crime of hooliganism was abolished, and the crime of hooliganism evolved into a number of charges, of which the crime of provoking and causing trouble was one of them. On 25 February 2011, the Amendment to the Criminal Code (VIII) was adopted, in which Article 40 amended the crime of causing aggression and nuisance by adding an article "to gather others to commit the preceding acts on many occasions", and the criminal punishment was more severe; On September 10, 2013, the two high schools issued an interpretation of several issues concerning the application of information networks in criminal cases, such as defamation, which extended the scope of the crime of defiance and nuisance to the network field and how to punish it. This series of changes can be seen that the crime of provoking aggression and causing trouble is being perfected and the legislation is being perfected. In recent years, there have been more and more cases of conviction and punishment for provocative and troublesome crimes. However, the composition of this crime is very abstract, and the lack of specific standards in its use leads to the existence of irregularities in judicial practice. In 1979, the crime of hooliganism in criminal law was called "pocket crime". It was the lack of specific standards in judicial practice that led to abuse, so the crime was abolished and replaced by other offences. The crime of provoking and causing trouble is one of the crimes decomposed from the crime of hooliganism, but the bad evaluation of this crime is not less than the crime of hooliganism. The connotation and extension of a crime has no standard, then it will also be doomed to "pocket crime". As a result, the crime of defiance and nuisance is regarded as the most difficult to identify and apply in judicial practice, and the crime is directly recognized as "pocket crime". Because of this, there is an argument about the existence and abolishment of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, that is, the theory of abrogation and the theory of reservation. The majority of scholars who abrogate this theory are based on the unclear provisions on the constitution of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, which leads to a unclear line of conduct with other offences, and difficulties in identifying the crime in judicial practice, and advocates the abolition of the crime of provoking aggression and causing trouble. The four types of acts of the crime are divided into other related offences existing in the criminal law. The reserving scholars believe that the crime of aggression and nuisance has a supplementary nature in the criminal law system of our country, its existence and development direction are consistent with our current criminal policy of combining leniency and severity, and its existence is reasonable and necessary, and its existence is reasonable and necessary. The problems in judicial practice can be explained reasonably and should not be abolished. With the continuous popularity of the legal principle of crime and punishment established in 1997, as well as the continuous improvement of the law, the relative accuracy of the charges is required to be more and more accurate. The theoretical and judicial demands for the abolition or cancellation of the crime of provoking and causing trouble have not stopped. However, our country is a statutory law country, its authority should be firmly preserved before the existing law has been amended or has the right to explain. In this paper, the author tries to expound the domestic and foreign legislation related situation, analyze the cause of the existence of the crime of aggression and nuisance and its own characteristics, confirm the rationality and necessity of the existence of the crime in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王良順;尋釁滋事罪廢止論[J];法商研究;2005年04期

2 馬彪;搶劫罪與尋釁滋事罪的“強(qiáng)拿硬要”區(qū)別[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2005年04期

3 邵宏生;;事出有因也能構(gòu)成尋釁滋事罪[J];人民檢察;2008年20期

4 李先華;舒惠安;孫媛媛;;涂某的行為構(gòu)成搶劫罪和尋釁滋事罪嗎[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2010年08期

5 叢珊;;淺析尋釁滋事罪的認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)商界(下半月);2010年11期

6 潘庸魯;;關(guān)于尋釁滋事罪中“隨意毆打他人”的理解與適用[J];北京人民警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

7 范再峰;;尋釁滋事罪問題探討——刑法第293條的犯罪構(gòu)成分析[J];商業(yè)文化(下半月);2011年12期

8 郭永剛;付四全;;尋釁滋事罪中“強(qiáng)拿硬要行為”與搶劫行為的區(qū)別[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2012年22期

9 李錦陽;劉瑜;;“隨意毆打”型尋釁滋事罪的定罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)淺探[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年12期

10 吳家林;;談我國(guó)刑法尋釁滋事罪的完善[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 朝陽區(qū)法院 曹作和;網(wǎng)絡(luò)造謠為何涉尋釁滋事罪[N];北京日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

2 龔飛 史金國(guó);如何區(qū)別尋釁滋事罪與搶劫罪[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2013年

3 何立榮;他的行為夠成搶劫罪還是尋釁滋事罪[N];廣西政法報(bào);2001年

4 瞿忠;尋釁滋事罪中“隨意毆打他人”如何認(rèn)定[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

5 于明祥;尋釁滋事罪中“強(qiáng)拿硬要”之認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2005年

6 寧輝;強(qiáng)迫交易罪與尋釁滋事罪的區(qū)別[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

7 李志霞;尋釁滋事罪若干問題分析[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2007年

8 高農(nóng)文 劉仁安;是尋釁滋事罪還是強(qiáng)迫交易罪[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2006年

9 尤小妹;朱某、趙某的行為構(gòu)成搶劫罪而不構(gòu)成尋釁滋事罪[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2006年

10 北京市西城區(qū)人民檢察院 吳新華;何為尋釁滋事罪中“隨意毆打他人”[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張維;尋釁滋事罪問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王波;尋釁滋事罪的理論和實(shí)踐探討[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

2 胡寧寧;尋釁滋事罪探析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

3 池益賢;尋釁滋事罪定罪問題研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2009年

4 張英男;論尋釁滋事罪的認(rèn)定[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

5 任加順;尋釁滋事罪若干問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

6 王孝江;尋釁滋事罪研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2002年

7 汪際宏;論尋釁滋事罪[D];武漢大學(xué);2004年

8 鄭漫容;尋釁滋事罪相關(guān)問題探析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

9 王化斌;尋釁滋事罪問題研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2007年

10 朱鶯華;尋釁滋事罪研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2441089