On Threat Behavior Of Criminal Law

Threat behavior violates other people's personal rights, at the same time, it may violate other social relationship. Consequently, threat behavior enters the field of vision of criminal law, and the criminal law of our country stipulates many crimes which are committed through threat. However, because the stipulation of threat behavior in our criminal law is enumerative, two problems are resulted in: one is that massive threat behaviors which do harms to citizen's spiritual calm and personal freedom seriously are excluded from rules and regulations of criminal law. It does no favor for the safeguard of human rights. It needs other relevant conditions for four kinds of threat behaviors to constitute crimes. If threat behaviors of actors don't bring out correspondingly following violation, or not have the corresponding purpose, or what is threatened isn't the corresponding object, then even the harm of threat behavior as an whole act, is equal to the harm of behavior which has been stipulated as crime in criminal law, it still can't be evaluated to criminal conduct, and becomes harmful behavior that rambles outside criminal law. The other is that, for serious threat behaviors outside criminal law standards, the judicial department processes respectively differently, and the results of each case are much different, some even depart from the consistent principle of crime and punishment completely. As for two problems above, there are two methods to solve them. For one hand, under current legislative frame for threat behavior, a convictive principle that is reasonable for threat conduct, should be established to accomplish the consistence between crime and punishment, and obey the principle of regulation for crime and punishment completely. So the character of threat behavior and its relationship with relevant conducts, should be further analyzed. When analyzing the acts of threat, attention should be paid to analyze the relationship between acts of threat as a whole and the acts to express threat, the acts to realize the content of threat and its subsequent acts. The acts to express threat shouldn't be seemed as the threat as a whole. Neither should the acts to express threat be seemed as the ones to express threat. While in the situation that subsequent acts exist, the acts of threat and the subsequent ones may consist of one crime since they link up as one multiple-act, or they may consist of several crimes if they are independent to each other, which should be analyzed individually. The acts beyond that of threat may have the implication relations with each other, which should be dealt with the principle of crime of implication. The establishment of reasonable convictive principle for threat behavior is a stopgap measure. On the other hand, as other countries in the world who set up the crimes of threat and coercion to achieve regulation for all serious threat behaviors, criminal law should be amended, to safeguard more strongly citizen's spiritual peace and freedom. There are plentiful causes for stipulation of threat behaviors as crimes: the primary legal profit which criminal law protects, should be the citizen'personal rights, and threat behavior violates legal profit the criminal law should protect, so it has seriously social hazardous nature; the crime installation of threat behavior independently doesn't contradict with the trend of not-criminality; the crime installation of threat behavior independently also do favor for distinguishing clearly dependant's criminal liability. After the crime installation of threat and coercion, the attention should be paid to distinguish limits between other conducts and them. The crime establishment of threat and coercion is a permanent cure for essence.