“婚闹”现象的社会规制缺失与刑法介入

Loss of Regulation of “Wedding Trouble” and Criminal Law Intervention

现实中"习俗"外衣下的婚闹过界行为大量存在,一方面对被害人的身心造成极大损害,另一方面对于习俗的走向产生了巨大的负面引导。但柔性规范对于这种本身躲在"习俗"下的实质犯罪行为却无法起到应有的规制作用,而在认同上,习俗具备了亲民性的优势使得区域内部形成了一种对于行为限度的认同迷茫。在司法未能积极的同习俗深度接触的前提下,这样一种司法懈怠态度使得"婚闹"行为归责缺位,而问题的解决关键便应该是在一种对话状态下,定性上以刑法为依据,习俗和刑法之间不会在定性出现本质冲突,仅仅可能在表达方式等有形式区别,故应该维持刑法的优先地位。而在量刑上,以习俗的合理部分作为吸收,充分的考量其作为酌定情节。对于"聚众""公众场合"应该谨慎和准确的认定,并对于符合和解情形的案件通过刑罚退出机制进行司法消解,从而实现松弛有度的约束和控制。

There is a large number of behaviors of marriage in the“custom”under the cloak of reality. On the one hand, the victim’s body and mind are greatly damaged;On the other hand, there is a huge negative guide to the direction of custom. However, the flexible norms can not play a proper role in this kind of real criminal behavior that is concealed under“customs”. In terms of identity, customs have the advantage of being friendly to people and make the region form a kind of behavioral limit. Confidence is lost. Under the premise that the judiciary failed to actively engage in deep contact with customs, such a legal slackness stipulates that the act of marriage is blamed for vacancy, and the key to solve the problem should be in a state of dialogue, qualitatively based on the criminal law. There is no inherent conflict between the custom and the criminal law in the qualitative, but only in the form of expression and other forms of distinction, it should maintain the priority of the criminal law. In terms of sentencing, the reasonable part of the customs is adopted as a sufficient consideration for its discretionary circumstances. For “giving together”and“public affairs”, it should be cautiously and accurately determined, and the cases that meet the reconciliation situation should be judicially dispelled through the penalty launch mechanism, so as to achieve relaxation and control.