On October 13, the 22nd Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress was held in Beijing. According to the latest news, the draft amendment to the criminal law, which has attracted much attention before, has made provisions: < / P > < p > stipulates that those who have reached the age of 12 but not under the age of 14 commit the crime of intentional homicide or intentional injury and cause death. If the circumstances are bad, they shall bear criminal responsibility after being approved by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. As for the crime of raping a young girl, it is pointed out in the draft that a heavier penalty shall be clearly applied in serious cases such as raping a girl under the age of 10 or causing injury to the girl. With the frequent occurrence of juvenile delinquency in recent years, the discussion on juvenile delinquency and the age of criminal responsibility has aroused widespread concern among the public. Whether it is the murder of a girl in Shenmu or the murder and burning of corpses in Dingzhou, it has caused a sensation for a while, not to mention the video of various minor criminal and administrative cases represented by campus bullying constantly emerge on the Internet in In response to the positive appeal and response of the public, the legislature seems to be more calm in the adjustment of juvenile criminal law. However, in fact, in 2017, the Ministry of public security cancelled the restrictive provision that minors aged 14 to 16 are not subject to administrative detention punishment, and the age range of not executing administrative detention penalty for the first violation of public security management was also abolished Wai, from the previous “16 years old but less than 18 years old”, was revised to “over 14 years old but less than 18 years old”, reducing the age of execution from 16 years old to 14 years old. Compared with the criminal punishment, the administrative punishment tried to make the first attempt, but it was not passed in the end, which lost an opportunity to provide some experience for the amendment of criminal law. < p > < p > until the recent case of a 13-year-old boy killing a 10-year-old girl in Dalian, the perpetrator was sentenced to detention for three years, his parents refused to perform civil compensation, he was sentenced to judicial detention, and the news that he was forced to auction property aroused greater public discontent. We found that the cautious “conservative treatment” has not brought about the stability of the disease, but with the younger age of psychological maturity and the multi-faceted reception of social information, “the condition” has further deteriorated. Finally, we waited for the changes brought about by the second draft amendment to the Criminal Law mentioned at the beginning. < / P > < p > according to the latest information disclosed, the draft finally adopts the practice of malicious supplement of age with specific charges, which has greater certainty in standardization. In addition, the approval of the Supreme People’s court also prevents the abuse of this provision. Of course, whether the charges are limited to intentional homicide and intentional injury causing death are too limited, and whether the original 14-year-old criminal responsibility should be fully included may be a matter of different opinions. For example, we are also concerned that in the case of raping a young girl, a heavier penalty should be applied to those who have raped a girl under the age of 10 or cause injury to the girl. However, rape is not within the scope of reducing the age of criminal responsibility of minors. Therefore, this provision may not be applicable to juvenile delinquency. On the contrary, similar to the case in which a 13-year-old boy killed a 10-year-old girl in Dalian, the boy’s original intention was to rape. Such cases are likely to have a large proportion in juvenile delinquency. For example, the case of Li in Beijing. Of course, this needs the data support of our judicial front-line units. This may have a lot to do with the composition of the law revision group in China, or how to balance the factors to be considered when revising the law. In the process of criminal law amendment, whose experience and opinions should be more heard and summarized, and how to verify the necessity of amendment is a very worthy question. In the process of amending criminal laws, the judicial and judicial administrative departments, which have the deepest and most experienced experience in the corresponding crimes or criminal liability provisions, are undoubtedly the judicial and judicial administrative departments represented by the public security organs and the law. Especially the public security organs, as the units directly contacting the front line of cases, have the most objective and authoritative experience and data support. Of course, due to their own role, there is indeed a side that is not conducive to the suspects, and many of their opinions may have the possibility of strengthening criminal punishment. But at least their data support is objective, even if they do not fully agree with their value judgment, it is obvious that we should pay attention to their factual statement. However, officials or scholars who are often members of the amendment group tend to have the trend of legal idealization or high degree, and always tend to be “ought to be” between “ought to be” and “reality”. On the other hand, the legal workers represented by the public security organs and procuratorial organs tend to be “real”. In the same way, in the method of supporting the revision of the law, the public security organs and procuratorial organs and laws are more likely to carry out their own arguments on the basis of the collation of judicial data. In addition to these quantitative analysis, officials and scholars will also have some elements that show the logic or idealization of the law itself. Of course, strictly speaking, such differences and even “checks and balances” are correct and necessary. If the legislation is too “pragmatic”, it is easy for the majority to infringe on the minority, but how to grasp this degree may be a difficult problem. In other words, on the issue of juvenile delinquency, we may pay too little attention to the role that quantitative data should bring.
in 2017, the Ministry of public security adjusted the age of administrative penalty. As for the early twenty-first Century, when the Ministry of public security submitted a proposal to reduce the age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 13 years old, it was based on the data collected by the public security organs in their long-term criminal investigation work, and it was not a natural impulse to “hate everyone is a criminal”. The scientificalness and preciseness are guaranteed, but they are not realized in the end. On the contrary, the majority of countries and international agreements in the world regard the age of 14 as the starting standard of punishment. We are obviously influenced by the “international practice” in choosing the starting age of punishment. At the same time, many of our scholars of juvenile delinquency also naturally have the feeling of “compassion”, for example, juvenile delinquency is “wrong” rather than “evil”, and imposing severe punishment on minors is an act of transferring family responsibility and social responsibility. Sometimes you don’t even know how to find the point of refutation, because it may have penetrated into his value system, which is an existence of axiomatic law. No matter how you say it to me, you may not listen. < / P > < p > first, the first meaning of punishment is still “punishment”, and then “education”. Never put the cart before the horse. No matter adult criminals or juvenile criminals make mistakes, they should be punished. Education is a value attached to punishment, which can be independent, but does not have superiority! If we want to educate him, the years of compulsory education and family education he received before, at the moment of his crime, all show that education has not had a great effect on him,! What he needs is another kind of “education”, which is called “punishment”. In addition, we also want to point out that reducing the age of criminal responsibility in criminal law can precisely play the role of “education in advance”. In addition to the effect of “judicial norms”, the law also has the effect of “code of conduct”. It is precisely because we know that certain behavior will bring criminal punishment, and the vast majority of the public will restrain themselves in advance Behavior. Why do we always pay attention to the correction and education after the occurrence of criminal cases instead of the prior education that should be brought about by the definite substantive law? Why do the victims and the society help bear the consequences of the lack of family legal education? Secondly, there is no doubt that the right relief of victims and their close relatives is superior to that of perpetrators. No matter how much you emphasize the protection of the rights of the perpetrators, please do not put the cart before the horse. In the past, we emphasized that the source of the protection of the rights of suspects and criminals was not discussed in the same latitude as the rights of the victims, but based on the possible existence of extorting confessions by torture and unjust, false and wrong cases. The adversary is our judicial and judicial administrative organs such as the public security organs, the law and so on. Out of the restriction and prevention of state public power, we emphasize the protection of the rights of suspects and criminals is undoubtedly correct. But I don’t know when, this kind of protection of the rights of suspects and criminals began to gradually erode to the right relief of victims. “What your daughter lost was a life, but what my son lost was twenty years of youth.” Third, what kind of punishment is called “adaptation of punishment for crime” and what punishment is called cruelty are also matters based on different social values. Whether there must be “universal cognition” is a topic worthy of discussion. Is death penalty more cruel than life imprisonment? Whether accepting hostility, ostracism and inner torture in society is more appropriate than that in prison, and there may be different answers. < / P > < p > and the more scientific and correct way to deal with these problems is to listen to the voice of the majority of citizens on the basis of not infringing upon the basic rights, and to find a more appropriate way through more objective and detailed data support. The objective data is that, even in the early 21st century, the age of crime was 2-3 years earlier than that in the 1990s, and crimes committed by young people under the age of 14 increased by 280%, of which crimes committed by 10-13 years accounted for 70%. The objective data is that 80% of the adult recidivists have been detained and imprisoned in their infancy, indicating that minor criminal punishment or administrative punishment can not solve the problem of juvenile criminal crimes. Of course, as the spokesman of the Legislative Council said, we should build a link between punishment and special correction education. We can not treat juvenile delinquency with reference to adult delinquency. After all, there are statistical differences between minors and adults in terms of mental maturity and rescue possibility. As mentioned above, why 80% of the adult recidivists in our country have been detained or imprisoned in their minors, which shows that there are some problems in the juvenile correction education in China. However, for those juvenile crimes that should be punished by analogy with adult criminal punishment, we do not need to force our judicial staff to have a sage mentality and apply it strictly and accurately Criminal punishment is the best solution to the offender, the victim and the society. Therefore, this clear two types of criminal cases should first apply the amendment of malicious compensation age, which is very worthy of affirmation. At the same time, it is expected that China can build a more systematic and perfect system in the treatment of juvenile delinquency. Focus