Theory Of Stir-up-trouble Crime Legislation Perfect

The stir-up-trouble crime，as one of the decomposition of the five charges，arose at thehistoric moment of the abolition of hooliganism in1997criminal law. Thestir-up-trouble behavior，stipulated for the crime according to the plot in article293ofthe criminal law，can be divided into four types. However，kinds of the problemsabout the stir-up-trouble crime，lying in the many defects of the legislation，areappearing in the process of the judicial practice so that it is necessary to improve andperfect the legislation of this crime.The stir-up-trouble crime is discussed and researched from three parts in this paper.The first part discusses the legislative status of the stir-up-trouble crime. This partmainly introduces the provisions of the current legislation and judicial interpretationof the stir-up-trouble crime，and presents the characteristics of the legislation，andcites two cases to illustrate the problems of the stir-up-trouble crime in the judicialpractice. Yan Yanhong，suspected of the stir-up-trouble crime，initially had beendetained by the public security organ in the abuse case in Wenling，but finally wasgiven administrative detention punishment. The case shows the lack of the realisticguiding standards that draws a clear boundary to tell us one committed this crime ornot. The rule by the courts in Beijing in attack case about Fang，which believes XiaoChuanguo committed the stir-up-trouble crime，is hard to convince the public. Thiscase shows the lack of the realistic operable standards that draws a clear line to tell usone committed this crime or that. The provisions about the stir-up-trouble crime aretoo abstract and broad in words，and lack the standards of the practical guidance tocognize the plots，and still have vagueness and incompleteness even though thejudicial interpretation specifies if the situations are serious or bad in the form of thelist. At the same time，where will one stir up trouble? May the place include thenetwork place? The law did not make the provision. The narrow scope，where the fineis applied to whom committed the stir-up-trouble crime，is not conducive to hit thecrime. The punishment of the stir-up-trouble crime is too lighter than hooliganism tobe abused more in the judicial practice. So it is necessary to adjust the terms of thepenalty. The affray，decomposed from the hooliganism as the stir-up-trouble crime，provides for the treatment of serious injury or death on people. But the sin in the lawis not reflected and the legal gap is constituted. The third part discusses the legislationperfect of the stir-up-trouble crime. The author puts forward the legislative suggestion in view of the legislative defects existing in the stir-up-trouble crime. This paper putsforward the legislative suggestions from four aspects including the legal interests，thestandards of the crime，the scope of the fine and the terms of the penalty，theapproaches of serious injury or death on people. These suggestions can make it keeppace with the times and follow the principle of a legally prescribed punishment. Atonce，the judicial workers can make the crime and the punishment suited with theenhanced public recognition of the law，and maintain the stability and authority of thelaw.