寻衅滋事行为的行政处罚:如何防止法律的泛道德化

Administrative Punishment for Provocative and Trouble-making Acts:Ways to Prevent the Pan-moralization of the Law

与寻衅滋事罪一样,治安管理处罚中的寻衅滋事在实践中也极易被误用和滥用。而且伴随两高两部相关司法解释的颁布,此类行为的行政处罚更呈现扩张适用的趋势。寻衅滋事处罚的扩张有违处罚法定原则,对基本权利形成了实质性干预,也导致了规范体系的结构失衡。学理上尝试通过行为类型的区分、流氓动机的强调以及公共秩序作为保护法益等三种径路对此类处罚的泛滥予以遏制,但这些径路都因存在内在困局而作用甚微。寻衅滋事的行政处罚之所以被滥用的根本原因,在于立法者尝试借由此类处罚打击违背一般社会道德行为,但这种做法恰恰与现代法益观念互相悖离,也导致实践越来越多冒犯国家机关公职人员权威或冒犯民族感情的行为被无端纳入惩罚机制。由此,对此类处罚适用问题的分析也同样提示法律与道德的一般界限,避免国家在攸关社会道德的问题上滑入强家父主义的立场,进而限制个人最基本的自我决定和自我开展。

Like the crime of provocation and trouble making,provocative and trouble-making acts in the punishment of public security management are also easily misused and abused in practice.Moreover,with the promulgation of the relevant judicial interpretations of the two Supremes and two Administrations,the administrative penalties for such acts have shown a trend of expanding application.The expansion of the punishment for provocative and trouble-making acts violates the legal principle of punishment,forms substantial interference with basic rights,and also leads to the structural imbalance of the normative system.Theoretically,we try to curb the proliferation of such penalties through the distinction of behavior types,the emphasis of hooligan motives and public order as the protection of legal interests,but these approaches play little role because of the inherent dilemma.The fundamental reason for the abuse of administrative penalties for provocative and trouble-making acts lies in legislators' attempts to use such penalties to combat acts that violate general social ethics.However,this practice is precisely contrary to modern legal interest concepts,and has led to an increasing number of acts that violate the authority of public officials in state organs or national feelings being unjustifiably included in the punishment mechanism in practice.Therefore,the analysis of the application of this kind of punishment also suggests the general boundary between law and morality,so as to prevent the state from slipping into a strong patriarchal position on issues related to social morality,thus limiting the most basic self-determination and self-development of individuals.