An Empirical Study On Judicial Determination Of The Crime Of Arbitrary Destructive Provocation

The crime of random destructive behavior and causing trouble has a high incidence and is a difficult problem for judicial determination.This paper conducts an empirical study on the crime of random destructive behavior from the judicial perspective.The first part is an empirical study on the judicial determination of the crime of arbitrary destructive type picking quarrels and causing trouble.Firstly,the general situation and classification of the sample cases are statistically analyzed in the form of charts.The overall picture summarizes the 2019 convictions for the crime of picking fights and its specific types of cases,with random vandalism accounting for a quarter of all picking fights.The first criterion of classification is the factors that should be considered when determining the constitutive elements,such as: damage causes,damage places,damage objects,damage circumstances,crime motives,etc.The second is related to the special cases,such as whether it is a comprehensive case,whether it is a dispute case.In addition,two typical cases from sample cases are listed for further analysis.The second part makes an empirical analysis of the disputes in the judicial determination of the crime of arbitrary destructive behavior.First,examine the practice of judicial practice in the aspect of constitution.The crime of arbitrary vandalism infringes on the double legal interest,that is,the social order and property rights related to property.Judicial organs do not pay attention to the role of legal interest in the conviction of a large proportion of cases occurred in non-public places and damage to specific objects as the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles.In addition,at the level of subjective responsibility,judicial organs have different understandings on whether the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles requires specific criminal motives.In practice,there are also cases that are obviously not "multiple times" identified as the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles.Secondly,the judicial practice is examined in terms of the distinction between the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles of arbitrary damage and other crimes.The judicial organs did not take into account the factors affecting the legal interest,such as damage to places and objects,when distinguishing the crime of picking quarrels and causing trouble from the crime of wilful destruction of property.In distinguishing between the crime of picking quarrels and causing trouble and the crime of forced transaction,it is wrong to add negative motivation to the crime of forced transaction.The third part proposes the judicial standard for the determination of the crime of arbitrary destructive behavior.This paper advocates that the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles should play a supplementary role in the present stage.It is clear that the crime of picking up troubles with arbitrary damage infringes on the double legal interest,and the judicial organs should attach importance to the role of the legal interest in the conviction,and determine the legal interest according to the factors such as damaged places and damaged objects."Arbitrary" should be identified as the element of subjective liability;The judicial organ should identify the crime according to the principle of division of concurring crime and should not pursue the accurate distinction with the related crime.Define "multiple times" as more than three times within two years;Comprehensive situation case can be identified as a crime by comprehensive evaluation.