On The Abolishing Of The Crime Of Picking Quarrels & Provoking Troubles

Disturb the crime as a criminal hooliganism from the old out of a differentiated charges for hooliganism inherited a poorly defined, broad content, practice chaotic defects. Based on the examination of the crime of trouble, that this crime has a theoretical shortcomings and lack of legislation on, and led to the practice of the impact of the principle of legality, should be abolished.This paper is divided into four parts.The first part reviews the history of similar trouble in the foreign provisions of the crime. That historically, disturb the crime and the history of the bachelor and hooliganism, are starting from nationalism to suppress the product of individual freedom. Criminal punishment is also the ancient Chinese thought, on the conviction of the heart more than thread, no longer conform to the trend of the modern rule of law and protection of human rights.The second part, in theory, the provisions of trouble in the crime, in violation of the principle of legality of the two substantive principles: the principle of clear and appropriate principles. China's criminal law provisions on the crime is more trouble in general, and prone to ambiguity, the theory and judicial practice on the relevant provisions of each term is almost always controversial, ordinary people more difficult to discern, and therefore contrary to the principle of clarity. Did not distinguish between lawful and unlawful, improper expansion of the scope of punishment, contrary to the principle of appropriateness. Not from the legal interests protected, but from the maintenance of social order and ethics perspective punishment, in violation of the principle of protection of legal interests. Because of trouble in the crime legislation is imperfect, being outside the law with judicial impact, disturb the crime in fact become the fallback provision, contrary to the principle of modesty.The third part analyzes the crime of trouble in the object, subjective and objective aspects of the controversies. There the object of this crime in order to identify whether certain public places is controversial. In subjective terms, is generally believed that there must be rogue motives, but what rogue statement motivation is slightly different. Opponents argue that no rogue motivation, because the provisions of the Criminal Code does not require a rogue motivation, the interpreter should not be allowed to increase the subjective components; but does not explain the evolution of natural right, or the Criminal Code amendments would be meaningless. In objective terms, the debate more freely in what is, what is arbitrary, whether the difference between the two, what is beating, what a strong hold insist, what is vile and the circumstances are serious, whether the difference between the two, how to distinguish between the crime and intentional injury , robbery and other charges and other related issues are numerous arguments, today, resulting in judicial practice is extremely difficult.The fourth part describes the trouble in the abolition of the crime of cultivation of the dispute, focusing on the abolition of school grounds and modify the school and made this view that this crime should be abolished.