“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪司法认定研究

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

杨孝成

导师:

袁林

导师单位:

法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

闹访;寻衅滋事罪;起哄闹事;司法认定

摘要:

信访作为我国特色权利救济制度,在公民维权方面发挥着重要作用。但是随着社会 发展,闹访维权问题也愈发突出,阻碍着法治社会的发展。对于法益侵害较为严重的闹 访行为,司法实践中一般以寻衅滋事定罪量刑,存在着定罪标准不统一,刑罚适用不合 理的问题。本文采用文献分析、实证分析等研究方法,通过研究闹访行为如何用寻衅滋 事罪合理认定,为实务中闹访问题的认定处理提供较为合理的定罪标准和刑罚适用尺 度,使闹访问题得到合法、有效的解决,进而为信访制度的完善和法治社会的发展提供 一点微薄之力。 第一部分,“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪基本构成。该部分主要通过分析寻衅滋事罪的犯 罪构成要件来概括“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪的基本构成。寻衅滋事罪其客观方面是有寻衅 滋事的行为;其主观方面是直接故意,需要特定目的;其客体是侵犯公共秩序。而“闹 访型”寻衅滋事罪其客观方面是有闹访寻衅的行为,这样的闹访行为具有过激性、胁迫 性与违法性,具有社会危害性,有着刑法治理的必要性;其主观方面是具有闹访寻衅的 动机;其客体是侵犯闹访场所的公共秩序,造成公共场所秩序严重混乱。 第二部分,“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪认定现状实证考察。通过搜集选定年份的裁判文 书进行数据分析,考察司法实务中对闹访行为定罪、量刑以及判决书说理部分的实际情 况,发现“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪在定罪、量刑上存在的问题。定罪方面存在的问题有: 过多认定寻衅滋事罪,没有合理统一的界限标准;司法认定片面强调“闹访型”寻衅滋 事罪的行为要素;“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪结果要素的认定缺乏明确标准。量刑方面存在 的问题有:“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪缓刑适用少且刑罚过重;酌定量刑情节与认罪认罚从 宽制度适用少,没有贯彻宽严相济刑事政策。 第三部分,“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪司法认定存在问题的原因分析。该部分在分析“闹 访型”寻衅滋事罪定罪、量刑认定问题的基础上,深入剖析问题背后的原因。“闹访型” 寻衅滋事罪在定罪方面存在问题的原因包括:对闹访治理的法律衔接不完善;寻衅滋事 罪条文高度抽象概括;司法认定缺乏对结果要素证据的审查。量刑方面存在问题的原因 包括:量刑时片面考虑维稳政策;从轻量刑情节适用过于死板。 1 万方数据 第四部分,“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪的合理认定。该部分在分析“闹访型”寻衅滋事 罪定罪、量刑认定问题原因的基础上,针对司法实务问题提出合理的认定建议。对于“闹 访型”寻衅滋事罪的司法认定,首先要坚持罪刑法定原则、刑法谦抑性原则、证据裁判 原则。其次要对“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪的罪状进行合理的限缩解释。最后对“闹访型” 寻衅滋事罪要判处合理合适的刑罚。

学科:

刑法学

提交日期

2025-12-31

引用参考

杨孝成. “闹访型”寻衅滋事罪司法认定研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2021.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • “闹访型”寻衅滋事罪司法认定研究
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20180301040246
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 杨孝成
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2021
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 袁林
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 闹访;;寻衅滋事罪;;起哄闹事;;司法认定
  • dc.subject
  • noisy visit;;the crime of provoking trouble;;provoking trouble;;judicial determination
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 信访作为我国特色权利救济制度,在公民维权方面发挥着重要作用。但是随着社会 发展,闹访维权问题也愈发突出,阻碍着法治社会的发展。对于法益侵害较为严重的闹 访行为,司法实践中一般以寻衅滋事定罪量刑,存在着定罪标准不统一,刑罚适用不合 理的问题。本文采用文献分析、实证分析等研究方法,通过研究闹访行为如何用寻衅滋 事罪合理认定,为实务中闹访问题的认定处理提供较为合理的定罪标准和刑罚适用尺 度,使闹访问题得到合法、有效的解决,进而为信访制度的完善和法治社会的发展提供 一点微薄之力。 第一部分,“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪基本构成。该部分主要通过分析寻衅滋事罪的犯 罪构成要件来概括“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪的基本构成。寻衅滋事罪其客观方面是有寻衅 滋事的行为;其主观方面是直接故意,需要特定目的;其客体是侵犯公共秩序。而“闹 访型”寻衅滋事罪其客观方面是有闹访寻衅的行为,这样的闹访行为具有过激性、胁迫 性与违法性,具有社会危害性,有着刑法治理的必要性;其主观方面是具有闹访寻衅的 动机;其客体是侵犯闹访场所的公共秩序,造成公共场所秩序严重混乱。 第二部分,“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪认定现状实证考察。通过搜集选定年份的裁判文 书进行数据分析,考察司法实务中对闹访行为定罪、量刑以及判决书说理部分的实际情 况,发现“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪在定罪、量刑上存在的问题。定罪方面存在的问题有: 过多认定寻衅滋事罪,没有合理统一的界限标准;司法认定片面强调“闹访型”寻衅滋 事罪的行为要素;“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪结果要素的认定缺乏明确标准。量刑方面存在 的问题有:“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪缓刑适用少且刑罚过重;酌定量刑情节与认罪认罚从 宽制度适用少,没有贯彻宽严相济刑事政策。 第三部分,“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪司法认定存在问题的原因分析。该部分在分析“闹 访型”寻衅滋事罪定罪、量刑认定问题的基础上,深入剖析问题背后的原因。“闹访型” 寻衅滋事罪在定罪方面存在问题的原因包括:对闹访治理的法律衔接不完善;寻衅滋事 罪条文高度抽象概括;司法认定缺乏对结果要素证据的审查。量刑方面存在问题的原因 包括:量刑时片面考虑维稳政策;从轻量刑情节适用过于死板。 1 万方数据 第四部分,“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪的合理认定。该部分在分析“闹访型”寻衅滋事 罪定罪、量刑认定问题原因的基础上,针对司法实务问题提出合理的认定建议。对于“闹 访型”寻衅滋事罪的司法认定,首先要坚持罪刑法定原则、刑法谦抑性原则、证据裁判 原则。其次要对“闹访型”寻衅滋事罪的罪状进行合理的限缩解释。最后对“闹访型” 寻衅滋事罪要判处合理合适的刑罚。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • As a relief system of rights with Chinese characteristics, letters and visits play an important role in citizen rights protection.However, with the development of society, the problem of visiting rights protection has become more prominent, hindering the development of a law-based society.As for serious legal violations, judicial practice is generally convicted and sentenced by picking quarrels, and there are problems of inconsistent conviction standards and unreasonable application of punishment.This paper uses literature analysis, theoretical analysis, empirical analysis and other research methods, by studying how to use visit behavior to identify the crime of provoking trouble, for the practice of visit problem to provide reasonable conviction standard and punishment applicable scale, make visit problem get legal, effective solution, and then for the improvement of the petition system and the development of a rule of law society. In the first part, the crime of "visiting type" and picking trouble is basically constituted.This part mainly summarizes the basic composition of the crime of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" by analyzing the criminal elements of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.The objective aspect of provoking crime is provoking; the subjective aspect is direct intention and requires specific purpose; its object violates public order.The objective aspect of "disturbance" is aggressive, coercive, illegal, and the necessity of criminal law; the object is, which results in serious disorder in public places. In the second part, the empirical investigation of the current situation of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble ".By collecting the judgment documents of the selected years for data analysis, we investigated the actual situation of the conviction, sentencing and the reasoning part of the judgment in the judicial practice, and found the problems existing in the conviction and sentencing of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.The problems in conviction are: excessive identification of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, no reasonable and unified boundary standards; judicial determination has one-sided emphasis on the behavioral elements of "visiting"; and lack of clear standards for the identification of the outcome elements of "visiting".The problems in sentencing are: the crime of "disturbance and disturbance" applies less probation and the punishment is too heavy; the discretionary sentencing circumstances and confession leniency system are less 1 万方数据 applicable, and the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity is not implemented. The third part, the reason analysis of the judicial identification of "noisy visit type".This part is on the basis of the analysis of the conviction and sentencing determination of the crime of "disturbing trouble and provoking trouble", and makes an in-depth analysis of the causes behind the problem.The reasons for the problems of the conviction of "visiting type" include: imperfect legal connection to the governance of visiting, highly abstract summary of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles, and lack of examination of the evidence of outcome elements in judicial determination.The reasons for the problems in sentencing include: one-sided consideration of the stability maintenance policy in sentencing; the application of light sentencing circumstances is too rigid. The fourth part, the reasonable judicial determination of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.On the basis of analyzing the reasons for the determination of conviction and sentencing for the crime of "disturbance disturbance", this part puts forward reasonable determination suggestions for judicial practice.For the judicial determination of the crime of "picking quarrels", we should first adhere to the principle of legal punishment, the modesty of criminal law and the principle of evidence judgment.Secondly, we should make a reasonable restriction and explanation on the crime of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".Finally, a reasonable and appropriate punishment should be imposed for the crime of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-31
回到顶部