Research On The Statutory Sentence For The Crime Of Buying Abducted Women

In the crime of trafficking in human beings,the judicial authorities severely crack down on kidnapping and trafficking,but at the same time,they tend to make lenient treatment for the buying behavior.In recent years,the call for increasing the legal penalty for the crime of bribing abducted and trafficked women has become increasingly high.After the exposure of the incident of " A woman who gave birth to eight children in Fengxian," public opinion has even pushed this call to its peak.Whenever there are some vicious social events,the discussion in the criminal law academia is particularly intense,and the issue of the rationality of the legal penalty allocation for the crime of bribing abducted and trafficked women has become a hot topic of academic discussion.Starting from the current controversial focus of the crime,the article refutes the view of improving the statutory penalty through argument,and proposes corresponding judicial countermeasures while maintaining the existing statutory penalty.This article consists of four parts.The first part is about the legislative evolution and practical status of the crime of buying abducted women.By reviewing the legislative evolution of this crime,it can be seen that China is gradually increasing its crackdown on bribery behavior and legislators’ determination to effectively regulate bribery behavior through criminal law.At the same time,by reviewing relevant judgments,the current situation of excessive leniency in the handling of bribery behavior is revealed,mainly manifested in the low proportion of combined punishment for multiple crimes and the overall leniency of sentencing.The second part is about the controversy about the statutory punishment of the crime of buying abducted and trafficked women.Based on the current situation of excessive leniency in the handling of bribery,and accompanied by reports of hot social events,the public and academic circles have rapidly triggered heated discussions about the legal penalty for the crime of buying abducted and trafficked women.From the perspective of the public,out of sympathy for the tragic plight of abducted women and a deep hatred for the cruel behavior of their buyers,the public almost overwhelmingly supports the increase in the legal penalty.However,the criminal law academia has formed two opposing views on this issue: the maintenance school represented by Professor Che Hao and the improvement school represented by Professor Luo Xiang.The third part is a refutation of the view of improving the statutory penalty.Firstly,the legal interest protected by the crime of buying and selling abducted women is only the human dignity of the abducted women.The degree of infringement of the legal interest of this crime is significantly lighter than that of the crime of kidnapping and selling women,and the nature of the protection of the legal interest is different from the related crimes of purchasing animals and plants.Secondly,the difference between the legal penalties for bribery and trafficking does not violate the theory of counter criminality,and the antithetical relationship in behavior does not lead to the conclusion that the legal penalty must be equivalent.The key to setting penalties for targeted offenders lies in the differences between the two crimes in terms of protecting legal interests,the personal danger of each person,and the necessity of punishment.In addition,the legislative model of inclusive crime of kidnapping and trafficking is different from the treatment model of combined punishment for several crimes of bribery.These differences collectively determine that different evaluation standards should be set for bribery and kidnapping.Thirdly,the expected effect of improving the statutory penalty is not good.Currently,there is no practical need to improve the statutory penalty,and improving the statutory penalty does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the crime rate.Finally,based on the reflection on Emotionality criminal legislation,criminal legislation activities should exceed public opinion on the basis of respecting public opinion,and avoid being interfered by public opinion rather than irrational amendments to criminal laws.The fourth part is to maintain the existing legal punishment position under the judicial response measures.The fundamental reason for the imbalance of punishment in bribery cases is not due to legislative flaws,but due to judicial loosening.Firstly,the judiciary should accurately understand the systematic provisions of Article 241 of the Criminal Law.The provision of combined punishment for several crimes should be understood as a precautionary provision to prompt the judicial authorities to simultaneously consider whether there is a subsequent criminal act after determining that the bribery act is established.The term "buy" should be understood separately as "buy" and does not include subsequent controlling actions to avoid confusion between buying and subsequent actions.Secondly,activating the provision of combined punishment for multiple crimes requires not only increasing the proportion of combined punishment for multiple crimes under typical circumstances,but also considering introducing a criminal presumption system to address the dilemma of high probability of subsequent acts in bribery cases but difficult to prove.Thirdly,strictly grasp the degree of application of suspension of sentence,and change the current situation of applying suspension of sentence without discrimination through typological analysis of the specific situation of abducted women.Finally,reduce the impact of extralegal factors on sentencing,re-examine the practical needs of marriage and childbirth,the behavior of the buyer to pay the consideration,and the role played by the marriage relationship formed after the purchase in the case of bribery,to prevent the erroneous value deviation caused by extralegal factors from affecting the handling of such cases in judicial practice.