Study Of Criminal Regulations For Mass Incidents

Currently, our country, at the moment of social transition, with economic system reform deepening and political system reform promoted, the pattern of interests also experiencing structural changes, correspondingly there have been deep-seated changes in social structure of our country. In this process of change, a variety of economic contradictions, conflicts of interests and social contradictions mutually penetrate and influence each other, and constantly boost mass incidents showing an intensifying situation. However, as the influence of subconciousness of "stability maintenance", a considerable part of officials have a political preference of surficial stability, to rely on bureaucratic logics and to enforce law selectively, which emphasizes too much the "political"effects for the disposal of mass incidents, while downgrading the handling of mass incidents’subsequential criminal behaviors with most oftenly some administrative punishment and even exemption. This way of treatment does not meet the basic requirement of criminal rule of law, but also cause adverse social demonstration effects. In the long run, it is not conducive to legal regulation of mass incidents. In this regard, a reasonable position of criminal regulation’s necessity and caution of its usage for mass incidents is critical for its intervention at a good time without absence or offside. By the "good governance" of criminal law, to get the participants of mass incidents feel the "warmth" of criminal law and experience its "majesty", to give full play the criminal law’s function of both legal protection of human rights and conflict resolution; and ultimately to realize the good purpose of criminal regulation for mass incidents. Based on this, to study the legitimacy of criminal regulation for mass incidents and its regulatory status quo in-depth, to research present criminal regulation’s defects and the path to improvement for preparing the relevant norms of mass incidents to get more sophisticated and effectively implemented with providing a theoretical reference and learning strategies, is particularly necessary.Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the text is divided into five chapters, a total of about210thousand words.The first chapter, summary of mass incidents. To study the criminal regulation for mass incidents, the first thing that needs to do should be a more clearer understanding and grasp of its attributes, types, causes and generating process and developing trends in recent years. Firstly, in the sight of the concept of mass incidents, it was explained and defined in detail respectively from linguistics, political science, sociology, criminology and criminal law in this chapter."Mass incidents", the concept from criminal law as defined in this chapter, is for some social contradictions and some false information triggered by three or more people gathering part series in violation of state laws and regulations to jointly implement, aggregate, parade, contain, impact, loot, mob riots or fight etc., which seriously disrupt social order and endanger public safety, or even "beating, smashing, looting" and other serious cluster behavior as violations of citizens’ personal safety and the safety of public and private property. Secondly, the political, social and legal nature of mass incidents was described and discussed in detail. The basic nature for most mass incidents in the politics is the contradictions among the people; from the social perspective the basic nature is a normal phenomenon that can not be avoided from social structure itself, and contains a certain function of social conflicts; from the perspective of the relationship between mass incidents and law, the legal property of mass incidents is a dynamic, changing and multi-dimensional problem of value judgment; there are four possible legal property status of legitimate events, trivial violations of law, security incidents and criminal incidents. And then, the type of mass incidents, causes and process of it were analyzed and demonstrated. Firstly, mass incidents in criminal regulation’s perspective can be divided into benign mass incidents, neutral mass incidents and malignant mass incidents. For the three types of mass incidents, involving attitude of criminal regulation should respectively be negative, cautiously restrained and positive in order to favor mass incidents’criminal regulation to achieve good governance. Secondly, the causes for mass incidents have both political reasons and economic reasons; have reasons from both society and the media, in addition to the reasons of the rule of law. The causes of such mass incidents determine criminal law involvements and interventions should remain its nature of cautious restraint. Thirdly, the occurrence of mass incidents process generally has an embryonic stage, preparation or brewing stage, taking place, intensifying phrase and becoming cute or atrophy digestion phase; different mass incidents with different stages determine their different legal characters, and subsequently determine the attitude or degree criminal regulation to intervene in mass incidents. Finally, the development trend of China’s mass incidents in recent years was systematically summarized and generalized. For the complex economic contradictions, conflicts of interest and complexity of integrated social issues, at the moment mass incidents in our country is showing a development trend of "incentives increasingly complex and constantly rise of quantity, expanding in size, with serious consequences and difficult to control". The second chapter, legitimacy of criminal regulation for mass incidents. Facing the intensified developing trend of mass incidents at the moment, whether criminal law regulation and intervention is necessary and feasible intervention is important for investigating the legitimacy of criminal regulation for mass incidents. First of all, this chapter illustrated the necessity of criminal law regulation for mass incidents, then further explained the feasibility of criminal law regulation for mass incidents; and finally from the perspective of criminal law regulation’s cautious restraints for mass incidents, it was demonstrated that it can ensure that criminal regulation of mass incidents legitimate only by keeping the criminal intervention extent for mass incidents appropriate. Not only for the reason of the severe and harmful social consequences of mass incidents, but also for the needs of control of its social psychology, criminal regulation of mass incidents have its necessity. Criminal law theory of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism, which is the substantial criteria of deciding whether a behavior is illegal or not, provide theoretical basis for the feasibility of criminal regulation for mass incidents; the current Penal Code and part of related criminal judicial explanations and other relevant regulations concerning mass incident with specified offenses provide a normative basis. Criminal law should not be abolished, but should not be praised highly either. To confront with the growing frequency and rising of mass incidents, the intervention of criminal law should not be inactivity or even concession; nevertheless, criminal law should make clear that the premise of correct handling of conflicts of freedom and safety must be the adherence to criminal law’s cautious restraint, and so the criminal regulation for mass incidents must adhere to the basic position of the criminal law’s cautious restraint which should not be shaken or break, which requires the criminal intervention of mass incidents should not be treated equally with general mob crimes. This is determined by the primary social, economic, political and media and even the reason from rule of law and it is also required by contradictions among the People of mass incidents, the diversity of their legal characteristics, the termination character of legal evaluation and the restriction character of criminal intervention. The application effect of criminal regulation for mass incidents is not only reflected in the legal effect of the application of criminal law, the more important is its political and social effects in such incidents. So the limitation of criminal intervention with mass incidents should be restrictively applied with the event property in such mass incidents which criminal inquiry had involved; the participants of mass incidents that should be charged by the criminal law should also be restricted. In terms of mass incidents applicable law, it should adhere to the applicable principles of law "civil and administrative law priority, criminal law last", to give the intervention of criminal law in mass incidents last restraint.The third chapter, the status quo of criminal regulation of mass incidents. China’s current criminal law does not specifically have provisions of crimes on mass incidents, but the provisions of criminal law in the common crime, ringleader, transforming crimes and other relevant theory of criminal law of mob crimes, can be applied to the judicial practice of criminal regulation of mass incidents. First, this chapter combed and summarized the relevant provisions of mass incidents involved in crimes on our current criminal statutes and the criminal law on subsidiary forms. Then, it analyzed the criminal justice principles which related to mass incidents involved in crimes and the contacts and differences between mass incidents, common crime and crime mob, and boundary problems of mass incidents involving crimes or related behaviors were tentatively studied and discussed. Next, the chapter starting with the identification of criminal ringleader of the finds of the active participants and other participants in mass incidents, made key research on the assumption of the main responsibility for the crimes of mass incidents. To identify such ringleaders, it should not only stick to the formal title, but should be concerned about whether they really played a role in organization, leadership and the planned action in mass incidents involving crimes, combining with its role, position and influence to comprehensive consideration. To identify such active participants, it should mainly consider the enthusiasm and the role the participants played in mass incidents involving stakeholders crimes, combining with relevant stakeholders’situation before and after the crimes, making comprehensive judgment. When identifying such other participants, if their participation is based on fraud or coercion, and in the lighter plot, they should be appropriate to lighter or mitigated punishment according to the law, or even give no criminal penalties. Finally, the paper analyzed the conversion of mass incidents involved crimes committed and the problem of accomplice departing. Whether ringleaders and active participants are the main body of transforming convicts in mass incidents involved crimes, it is not one size fits all, but we should combine the theory of limit practice to make specific identification and comprehensive consideration. The issues of departing from accomplice in mass incidents involved crimes should be taken the theory of cutting standard causality of accomplice departing, whether such accomplice cut off the causality relation between their own behavior and group events from the view of physical causality and psychological causality or not, in considering whether relieve their criminally responsibilities. The fourth chapter, the defects of criminal regulation for mass incidents. Current criminal law on the regulation of mass incidents, from criminal law theory level to the field of criminal legislation, there are some flaws and shortcomings. This chapter summarized and generalized the defects of criminal regulation for mass incidents from the dimensions of the theoretical system and the legislation. As the related crimes evolved from the subsequent behavior of mass incidents and the mob crime formulated in current criminal law, either in causes, motives for the crime or harmful results, or in the political effects, social effects or legal effects after treatment, have many differences. The mob crime is not set up for mass incidents criminal regulation, and mass incidents are not all manifested as mob crimes; moreover, some typical mob crimes have no relationship with mass incidents. Based on this, if applying of traditional judicial reference dimensions of mob crime to treat mass incidents criminal regulation, there will be inevitable embarrassment. Shortcomings of these embarrassments, on the one hand, are the lack of the principles for mass incidents criminal regulation and the absence of our criminal law system in misdemeanor, as well as the traditional definition of "qualitative" and "quantitative" concept of crime patterns. On the other hand, it also manifested as the lack of criminal legislation in the concept of mass incidents and the "trend groups" behaviors, as well as the absence of criminal regulation in the behaviors of making up rumors which related with mass incidents. Especially the blank of concept definition in criminal legislation on mass incidents, has a direct impact on the effective application of the article Ⅲ which is defined in September6,2013the Supreme People’s court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate "About the interpretation of the issues concerning the application of law in criminal cases the use of information network implementation of libel and so on ".The fifth chapter, the improvement of criminal regulation for mass incidents. There are defects of mass incidents criminal regulation in theoretical level and legislative norms. To improve mass incidents criminal regulation, this chapter has put forward the path of improving mass incidents criminal regulation,"enriching criminal law misdemeanor theory, improving the criminal legislation norms, innovating penal settlement mechanism",from the perspective of improving legislation and theory. First, we should establish the basic principles of mass incidents criminal regulation, as "stick to the criminal law modest, prudent of judicial extension, defend the principle of responsibility, take security exception into account, rather than severely adhering to strict, moderate administrative expansion, adhere to the law and rule, wary of governing according to politics ". Second, we should construct misdemeanor system of mass incidents criminal regulation, improving the penal configuration under misdemeanor system, and reform the "offender" labeling effect of "felony" culture under the comprehensive definition of "qualitative" and "quantitative" concept of crimes. Moreover, provisions concerning definition of "the meaning of mass incidents" could be added in the "other provisions" of the contents in the fifth chapter of the general part of current Penal Code, to manifest the concept of mass incidents. In addition, the criminal regulation system for tendency to mass incidents should be constructed under the condition of the construction of misdemeanor system in mass incidents criminal regulation. These foregoing trends of mass incidents should be included in misdemeanor crimes of mass incidents criminal regulation, and it should introduce a crime of mob refused to disband. Finally, we should improve the criminal legislation structure which is related to mass incidents about the behaviors of making up and spread rumors. The criminal regulation for the behaviors which are attempting to procure mass incidents, expanding or even intensifying the corresponding series of rumors should be raised up to the status of criminal law norms; the propagating false information behaviors, which will lead to mass incidents and seriously disrupt social orders, should be included in misdemeanor regulation of mass incidents criminal regulation. In the "the offenses of disturbing public order" of Section I at Chapter VI of current Penal Code, it should set independently the crime of fabricating and intentionally spreading false information.