Research On The Judicial Application Of The Crime Of Illegal Detention With Debt Demand

At present,China’s criminal law and judicial interpretations still do not have specific provisions on the crime of illegal detention of debt demand,and the standards for determining the crime of illegal detention of debt demand are not unified in theory,making it difficult for judges to accurately determine the nature of illegal detention of debt demand in judicial practice.Taking a sample of 200 randomly selected cases of illegal detention for debt from2020 to 2022,this paper studies the judicial application of the crime of illegal detention with debt demand from the perspective of judicial practice,and explores the judicial application framework of the crime of illegal detention of debt demand from four parts,in order to provide useful assistance to solve similar cases in judicial practice.The text is divided into three parts: the first part starts from the judicial precedents of the crime of illegal detention of debt demand,and examines the current situation of judicial application of the crime of illegal detention of debt demand.At the level of case facts,the sample cases showed the characteristics of various types of debts involved,different length of detention,wide range of detention targets,high incidence of beatings and humiliations,but low degree of personal damage.At the level of conviction,it shows the characteristics of high rate of guilty verdicts and high application rate of the crime of illegal detention of debt demand.At the sentencing level,the types of punishment are mainly fixed-term imprisonment,and the application rate of controlled sentences and detention sentences is very low.Sentences are mainly concentrated in less than three years’ imprisonment;low rates of probation.The mode of detention,length of detention,number of detainees,death,voluntary surrender,confession,recidivism,confession,confession of guilt and punishment are factors that have a significant impact on the length of fixed-term imprisonment through regression analysis.The second part is to explore the problems in the judicial application of the crime of illegal detention of the debt demand type and their causes.At the level of conviction,there is a problem that the determination of the crime of debt-demanding illegal detention is inconsistent with the determination of the number of crimes.The reasons for the above problems mainly lie in the following three aspects: first,the criminalization criteria for this crime are vague;second,the boundary between this sin and other sins is unclear;Third,when claiming excess debts,the determination of the number of crimes is more confusing.At the sentencing level,there are problems that the sentencing results of sample cases are generally light and the sentencing results are unbalanced between the same cases.The reasons for the above problems mainly lie in the following two aspects: first,ignoring the primary role of objective illegal facts;Second,the evaluation of sentencing circumstances is not standardized.The third part is to put forward suggestions for standardizing the judicial application of the crime of illegal detention of debt demand.At the level of conviction,first of all,the criteria for incriminating this crime should be clarified,specifically: under normal circumstances,the length of detention should reach 24 hours or more to establish this crime;The role of beating and insulting circumstances should not only be reflected in sentencing;The manner in which this crime is committed does not include restricting the personal liberty of others.Second,the boundary between this crime and other crimes should be clarified: debts of different nature should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis;Where the employing another person illegally detains the victim,the criminal liability of the employee shall be determined in conjunction with the employer’s subsequent criminal conduct;The detention of this offence shall include only persons who have a close relationship with the debtor and who are directly connected with the debt.Finally,the number of guilts in the case of claims for excess debt should be clarified.At the sentencing level,first of all,sentencing activities should pay attention to the primary role of objective illegal facts.Specifically,attention should be paid to the positive correlation between the length,frequency and number of detentions and sentencing results,and the starting point for sentencing should be determined by the harmful results.Second,the evaluation of sentencing circumstances should be standardized.Specifically,a comprehensive evaluation of the statutory sentencing circumstances should be conducted,while paying attention to distinguishing the impact of each sentencing circumstance.