网络宣扬恐怖主义、极端主义案件的制裁思路——对当前20个样本案例的考察
|
摘要
考察目前构成宣扬恐怖主义、极端主义罪的20个样本案例可知,该类案件呈现出明显的犯罪手段网络化,司法规制范围模糊化与裁判尺度不统一的特点。为此,应尽快制定司法解释,科学界定本罪意涵,匡正刑法规制范围,改善打击着力点,统一裁判尺度。对网络宣扬恐怖主义、极端主义案件的司法处理,应坚持严格控制与妥善处理并重的司法理念,认真贯彻宽严相济刑事政策和基本违法事实审查判断行政去魅的基本立场。具体的制裁思路是:对宣扬恐怖主义、极端主义行为犯罪化的定性,应围绕本罪保护目的展开,重点惩治"有效宣扬"行为;定量限制应贯彻比例原则和罪责刑相适应原则;适用缓刑的实质判断关键在于对"确实不致再危害社会"的考量,除个别情形外,原则上以适用缓刑为主;手机、电脑等网络信息工具有多种用途,原则上不予没收。虽然恐怖主义犯罪不同于传统犯罪,固然要突出其预防性打击的特点,但也要恪守刑法惩治犯罪的法治底线,使处罚范围和力度符合公众预期,切忌"过度反应"。
Investigating the 20 sample cases that constitute the crime of advocating terrorism and extremism,it can be seen that such crimes have obvious characteristics of networking of criminal means,vagueness of judicial regulation scope and inconsistence of refereeing standards. Therefore, judicial interpretation should be formulated as soon as possible to scientifically define the meaning of this crime,correct the scope of criminal law regulation,improve the point of attack,and unify the refereeing scale. Judicial treatment of network advocating terrorism and extremism cases should adhere to the judicial idea of strict control and proper handling, the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy, and the basic position of administrative disenchantment of basic illegal facts judgment. The specific sanction path is that the definition of criminalization of advocating terrorism and extremism should be carried out around the protection purpose of this crime,focusing on punishing "effectively publicizing " behaviors; quantitative restriction should follow the principle of proportionality and the principle of suiting punishment to crime and responsibility; except for individual cases,in principle,probation should be applied as the main way,with the key to the substantive judgment of applying probation lying in the consideration of "does not harm the society again "; network information tools such as mobile phones and computers have many uses,and should not be confiscated in principle. Different from traditional crimes,terrorist crimes must highlight their characteristics of preventive strikes. However,the legal bottom line of criminal law in punishing crimes must also be abided by,so that the scope and intensity of punishments can be in line with public expectations,to avoid excessive reaction.
Investigating the 20 sample cases that constitute the crime of advocating terrorism and extremism,it can be seen that such crimes have obvious characteristics of networking of criminal means,vagueness of judicial regulation scope and inconsistence of refereeing standards. Therefore, judicial interpretation should be formulated as soon as possible to scientifically define the meaning of this crime,correct the scope of criminal law regulation,improve the point of attack,and unify the refereeing scale. Judicial treatment of network advocating terrorism and extremism cases should adhere to the judicial idea of strict control and proper handling, the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy, and the basic position of administrative disenchantment of basic illegal facts judgment. The specific sanction path is that the definition of criminalization of advocating terrorism and extremism should be carried out around the protection purpose of this crime,focusing on punishing "effectively publicizing " behaviors; quantitative restriction should follow the principle of proportionality and the principle of suiting punishment to crime and responsibility; except for individual cases,in principle,probation should be applied as the main way,with the key to the substantive judgment of applying probation lying in the consideration of "does not harm the society again "; network information tools such as mobile phones and computers have many uses,and should not be confiscated in principle. Different from traditional crimes,terrorist crimes must highlight their characteristics of preventive strikes. However,the legal bottom line of criminal law in punishing crimes must also be abided by,so that the scope and intensity of punishments can be in line with public expectations,to avoid excessive reaction.
引文
[1]张明楷.刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2016.
[2]刘艳红.网络时代言论自由的刑法边界[J].中国社会科学,2016(10):134-152.
[3]安德鲁·西尔克.反恐心理学[M].孙浚淞,刘晓倩,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2017:44-45.
[4]CRONIN A.Introduction:Meeting and managing the threat[M]//CRONIN A K,LUDES J.Attacking terrorism:Elements of a grand strategy.Washington,D.C.:Georgetown University Press,2004:1-45.
[5]布里奇特.L.娜克丝.反恐原理[M].陈庆,郭刚毅,译.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2016:299.
[6]劳东燕.功能主义刑法解释论的方法与立场[J].政法论坛,2018(2):10-27.
[7]伯恩·魏德士.法理学[M].丁小春,吴越,译.北京:法律出版社,2003:60.
[8]江必新.在法律之内寻求社会效果[J].中国法学,2009(3):5-14.
[9]何荣功.预防刑法的扩张及其限度[J].法学研究,2017(4):138-154.
[10]张明楷.论刑法中的没收[J].法学家,2012(3):55-70.
[11]吴燕,赵祥东.“供犯罪所用本人财物”的认定与没收[M]//最高人民法院刑事审判第一庭、第二庭.刑事审判参考(第45集).北京:法律出版社,2006:56.
(1)参见新疆维吾尔自治区霍城县人民法院刑事判决书新4023刑初[2016]177号;新疆生产建设兵团第一师中级人民法院刑事裁定书兵01 刑终[2017]1号;广东省东莞市中级人民法院刑事判决书粤19刑初[2017]215号。
(2)该20份样本案例中,被告人皆系初犯、均有坦白情节。
(3)表1统计的数据反映出,目前实务部门确立的体现本罪客观危害程度的犯罪情节主要包括视频等暴恐等级程度、网络受众目标数量以及宣传材料数量。
(4)从表1统计的结果看,20个案例判决中在定罪量刑时,同时考虑该两个因素的案例达到100%。张某丙案受众人数不详,是因为司法机关没有具体列明,不代表其没有考虑受众人数。
(5)《反恐怖主义法》第80条第1款,规定了对宣扬恐怖主义、极端主义,情节轻微,尚不构成犯罪的,处以拘留或并处罚款。
(6)从表1统计的情况看,20份样本案例中,宣扬材料为视音频的案件样本数为18件,但定罪量刑时考虑视音频长短的样本数仅有4件,占比只有22. 2%。可见,绝大多数司法机关并未重视视音频长短情节对定罪量刑的影响。
(7)2014年由“两高一部”共同颁行的《关于办理暴力恐怖和宗教极端刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》(以下简称“意见”)中指出了对“明知”的具体认定标准,即“应当结合案件具体情况,坚持重证据,重调查研究,以行为人实施的客观行为为基础,结合其一贯表现,具体行为、程度、手段、事后态度,以及年龄、认知和受教育程度、所从事的职业等综合判断”。
[2]刘艳红.网络时代言论自由的刑法边界[J].中国社会科学,2016(10):134-152.
[3]安德鲁·西尔克.反恐心理学[M].孙浚淞,刘晓倩,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2017:44-45.
[4]CRONIN A.Introduction:Meeting and managing the threat[M]//CRONIN A K,LUDES J.Attacking terrorism:Elements of a grand strategy.Washington,D.C.:Georgetown University Press,2004:1-45.
[5]布里奇特.L.娜克丝.反恐原理[M].陈庆,郭刚毅,译.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2016:299.
[6]劳东燕.功能主义刑法解释论的方法与立场[J].政法论坛,2018(2):10-27.
[7]伯恩·魏德士.法理学[M].丁小春,吴越,译.北京:法律出版社,2003:60.
[8]江必新.在法律之内寻求社会效果[J].中国法学,2009(3):5-14.
[9]何荣功.预防刑法的扩张及其限度[J].法学研究,2017(4):138-154.
[10]张明楷.论刑法中的没收[J].法学家,2012(3):55-70.
[11]吴燕,赵祥东.“供犯罪所用本人财物”的认定与没收[M]//最高人民法院刑事审判第一庭、第二庭.刑事审判参考(第45集).北京:法律出版社,2006:56.
(1)参见新疆维吾尔自治区霍城县人民法院刑事判决书新4023刑初[2016]177号;新疆生产建设兵团第一师中级人民法院刑事裁定书兵01 刑终[2017]1号;广东省东莞市中级人民法院刑事判决书粤19刑初[2017]215号。
(2)该20份样本案例中,被告人皆系初犯、均有坦白情节。
(3)表1统计的数据反映出,目前实务部门确立的体现本罪客观危害程度的犯罪情节主要包括视频等暴恐等级程度、网络受众目标数量以及宣传材料数量。
(4)从表1统计的结果看,20个案例判决中在定罪量刑时,同时考虑该两个因素的案例达到100%。张某丙案受众人数不详,是因为司法机关没有具体列明,不代表其没有考虑受众人数。
(5)《反恐怖主义法》第80条第1款,规定了对宣扬恐怖主义、极端主义,情节轻微,尚不构成犯罪的,处以拘留或并处罚款。
(6)从表1统计的情况看,20份样本案例中,宣扬材料为视音频的案件样本数为18件,但定罪量刑时考虑视音频长短的样本数仅有4件,占比只有22. 2%。可见,绝大多数司法机关并未重视视音频长短情节对定罪量刑的影响。
(7)2014年由“两高一部”共同颁行的《关于办理暴力恐怖和宗教极端刑事案件适用法律若干问题的意见》(以下简称“意见”)中指出了对“明知”的具体认定标准,即“应当结合案件具体情况,坚持重证据,重调查研究,以行为人实施的客观行为为基础,结合其一贯表现,具体行为、程度、手段、事后态度,以及年龄、认知和受教育程度、所从事的职业等综合判断”。