On Thinking Of Criminal Law Of Compulsory Demolishing Act In China

House demolition is an important step of the urban construction in China. For thehouse demolition involves the interests of all parties, its program is hard to make out.Especially, compulsory demolition generates a lot of contractions between the peopleand the government departments. And all kinds of bloody conflicts have happened.Scholars discuss the problems of the compulsory demotion act deeply in the field of theconstitution and civil law. Amid various suggestions, Houses on the state-owned landexpropriation and compensation ordinance has carried out. However, a few of scholarsanalyze the legal nature of the compulsory demolition act in the field of penal law. Inthis paper, author will use the case of three self-burning people whose house would beforce removed against compulsory demolition act of government as a clue to analyzethe act character of the people who is demolishing the house and the people who ownthe house in the view of the criminal law, so as to take the compulsory demolition actinto the orbit of legal system and be better to protect the rights of the two parties.This paper divided three parts. The first part introduces the case and figures outthree points at the angle of the criminal law. One is that the people whose house will beforce removed whether can take the right of the justifiable defense when they facingtheir house will be demolished. One is that the self-burning act whether forms the crimeof the interference with public administration. One is that the behavior of doing nothingfor the self-burning people whether forms nonfeasance sin.In the second part, author will analyze the case with the legal theory. And this parthas three levels. The first level, through analyzing the theory of justifiable defense andcharacter of compulsory demolition act, author concludes that house is different fromany other general property, when people’s houses have been removed illegally, they canuse the right of justifiable defense. And the limitation of this right should be lager thanthe limitation of right of other general property. The second level, from analyzing theelements of crime of interference with public administration and people’s acts in thecase, author thinks that the behavior of self-burning people whose houses would beforce removed can not be sentenced to the crime of interference with publicadministration. The third level, through analyzing the theory of negative act, authorconcludes that people who demolishing the house do nothing for self-burning peoplealready form the crime of misconduct in office. But whether being a crime of intentional homicide depends on the particular circumstance.In the third part, author presents some suggestions of legal regulation on thecompulsory demolition act. Author hopes that the rule of the compulsory demolition actcan be more perfect in legislation and judicial practice, so that the bloody conflicts havenever taken place.