Discussion And Response Of The All-inclusiveness Of The Crime Of Creating Disturbances

The crime of creating disturbances has been widely discussed and has causedconsiderable controversies in recent years. In judicial practice, there are more and moredifferent types of misconducts and crimes being wrongly classified as this crime. Theall-inclusiveness of this crime becomes increasingly significant. Through this study, theauthor tries to discuss this problem from two aspects which are the interpretation of criminallaw and criminal legislative modification, to gradually define the scope of the crime, toestablish its punishment standards, with the method of theoretical analysis and data analysisfor the purpose of dealing with the increasingly apparent problem of the all-inclusiveness ofthis crime. Through the analysis of this article, the author attempts to reestablish the positionof the crime of creating disturbances in criminal law system, to clarify its substantiveconnotation and the theoretical boundaries, in the hope of contributing to judicial practice.This paper is divided into four chapters. The first part discusses the concept and the mainmanifestations of the all-inclusiveness of the crime of creating disturbances. It refers to aphenomenon where in judicial practice the crime of creating disturbances is convicted atrandom, but in fact, it includes a variety of other crimes and misconducts, because this crimeis expressed vaguely in the statute and has caused controversies in the theory of criminal law.Its main manifestations are the vague phrases in the statute of the object, the subjectiveelements, and the objective elements of this crime; furthermore the judiciary applies thiscrime with a strong randomness. Meanwhile, the author also examines how foreign criminallaw responses to this crime, tries to seek the possibility of solve our problem by referring toforeign legislative statutes and judicial practices. The second part studies negative impacts ofthe all-inclusiveness of this crime. From the point of view that it affects the three basicprinciples of our criminal law, it has a negative impact on the implementation of the criminallaw. The third part mainly describes the specific causes for the all-inclusiveness of this crime,which mainly contains nine reasons: the legislative philosophy, the inheritance of notion, thejudicial practice and etc., moreover it explores these various reasons in detail. The fourth partis the focus of this paper. Firstly, it discusses the significance of the crime of creating disturbances from the perspective of legislation. The legislative intention of this crime is topay attention to the personal dangerousness and the effectiveness of the prevention of thecrime. Secondly, the article attempts to seek proper response to the all-inclusiveness of thecrime of creating disturbances through interpretation within the framework of the existingcriminal law. The author discusses the object, the subjective elements, the objective elementsof this crime, the problem of crime and non crime, and other matters such as the distinctionsbetween one crime and another in this chapter to grasp the scope of the crime of creatingdisturbances. At the end of this paper, it is concluded that the crime of creating disturbancesshall not be abolished without detailed consideration. It is recommended to explore thedevelopment of this crime, to make appropriate amendments to the constituting facts and thepenalty for this crime based on a thorough understanding of substantive connotation and thelegislative intention of the criminal law of this crime.