Theory Of Stir-up-trouble Crime Abolished

Stir-up-trouble crime is unique to the criminal law of China, and no similar stir-up-trouble crime legislation in foreign countries. Stir-up-trouble crime in criminal law since 1979 after separated hooliganism, in judicial practice, stir-up-trouble crime will appear a lot of problems, in theory and practice. Intention in this paper, this paper discusses from two aspects: legislative and judicial stir-up-trouble crime exists not reasonableness and necessity, not through the constitutive requirements of stir-up-trouble crime is analyzed, and combining with the judicial case to prove stir-up-trouble crime should be abolished, and puts forward some solving stir-up-trouble crime after the path.First of all, in this paper, the concept of stir-up-trouble crime are discussed. In the criminal law educational world, some scholars understanding stir-up-trouble crime concept is different, different ways to explain the interpretation of the law is different, this article finally confirmed to stir-up-trouble crime explanation for the direct interpretation. Because stir-up-trouble crime of hooliganism in 1979, and thus illustrates stir-up-trouble crime legislation evolution in understanding the connotation of stir-up-trouble crime has important significance.Secondly, this article through the analysis of the crime of stir-up-trouble crime contains objective elements and subjective elements for stir-up-trouble crime the rationality and necessity of existence. This article from the perspective of legislation and judicial application of these two, there’s no need for the clear stir-up-trouble crime, and also expounds the reasons for stir-up-trouble crime should be abolished.Finally, this paper put forward for stir-up-trouble crime abolished some way to solve. Through stir-up-trouble crime listed specific behavior norms, make a standard to conform to the provisions of the criminal law in criminal law, for does not constitute a criminal offence, combined with the case facts decided on regulations on administrative penalties for public security, or as a civil dispute.