Research On The Judicial Identification Of Crimes Of Propagating Terrorism And Extremism

The 2015 Criminal Law Amendment（IX）added the crime of advocating terrorism,extremism,and inciting terrorist activities to deal with the new situation of counter-terrorism.It has been seven years of judicial practice,but empirical research shows that there is still some controversy in the conviction and sentencing of this crime in judicial practice.Through the comparative research and analysis of 62 empirical cases,this paper analyzes the promotion of terrorism and extremism from three aspects.The problem of crime（this article focuses on this crime because of the choice of the crime）will be sorted out.This article sorts out the controversial issues from three aspects.The objective aspect is mainly due to the inaccurate declaration of charges caused by the unclear concepts of terrorism and extremism,the controversy over the behavior of propaganda,and the difficulty in determining the number of crimes due to the unclear distinction between propaganda and possession.The subjective aspect is mainly about the determination of criminal intent;in terms of sentencing,the application of sentencing circumstances is also rather confusing,the phenomenon of different sentences in the same case frequently occurs,and the determination of the "serious circumstances" of this crime lacks a unified standard.The first part is the objective aspect,how to determine the act of this crime is the first part.This paper distinguishes the behavior of propaganda behavior,denies the criminal illegality of indirect propaganda behavior,and analyzes the types of online propaganda behavior according to sample cases.Summarized.To overcome the challenge of conviction,a distinction is made between propaganda and incitement,and propaganda and possession.Second,in order to accurately apply selective charges,the concepts of terrorism and extremism and the relationship between the two are clarified.The determination of the nature of the items involved should be determined in accordance with the definitions of the two doctrines and in combination with the characteristics of cybercrime.Finally,the selective charges are correctly applied according to the nature of the items involved.The second part is the subjective aspect,which is mainly analyzed from the perspectives of cognitive factors and volitional factors.From the perspective of cognitive factors,the perpetrators are required to be aware of the object of the behavior,and the harmful results caused by the behavior,but the requirements for the degree of cognition are different.From the perspective of volitional factors,the establishment of this crime does not exclude indirect intention;for network service providers,technical neutrality cannot be a reason for exemption,and their knowing judgments should be presumed,and specific analysis should be carried out according to their behaviors.The third part is the aspect of sentencing,focusing on research on the criteria for seriousness of the situation,which should be based on the principles of modesty,protection of legal interests,and causality in criminal law,while focusing on improving the circumstances of responsibility.Take into account the circumstances of preventive punishment.Make an overall grasp of the number,duration,grade,actual scope of influence,social hazard and subjective malignancy of the behavior involved in the case.