The rains of 2023
What is your view on the issues related to the determination of the crimes of forcible indecency and insult? Everyone is welcome to leave a message or contribute to the discussion below. For the original manuscripts sent on this WeChat public platform, rewards will be given as appropriate based on the amount of reading, and the Hunan Provincial Criminal Rule of Law Research Association will also award the original articles every year and give different levels of rewards. What are you waiting for, come and submit!
Submission email: [email protected].
Abstract:The Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law has changed the original crimes of forcible indecency and humiliation of women to the crimes of compulsory indecency and insult, which conforms to the trend of the times, but this revision has increased the difficulty of judicial determination of the crimes of compulsory indecency and insult to a certain extent, which is not conducive to judicial fairness. It is necessary to clarify whether this crime needs to have a specific purpose and the relationship between "indecency" and "insult", reasonably determine the crime of forcible indecency and insult, and protect the lawful rights and interests of the defendant.
Keywords: forcible indecency, insult; insults; Tendency to commit crimes
I. Formulation of the problem
At the beginning of the establishment of the mainland, the crime of indecency was not an independent crime, but was classified as a form of hooliganism. However, as a catch-all clause, the protection of specific legal interests is not clear. With the deepening of the openness of social sexual concepts and the continuous improvement of the concept of China's criminal law, the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (1979) stipulates the crime of "forcible indecency and humiliation of women", and believes that the legal interests protected by this crime are women's sexual autonomy and sexual dignity, and the relevant legal interests have been strongly protected by the criminal law, and then in 2015, the Criminal Law Amendment (IX) partially revised the crime, and the crime of "forcible indecency and insult to women" was officially corrected to "the crime of forcible indecency and insult". The current criminal law of the mainland places the crimes of forcible indecency and insult in the chapter on the protection of citizens' personal and democratic rights, and makes specific provisions. However, in judicial practice, there are situations where "the perpetrator needs to have the criminal purpose of seeking stimulation or satisfying sexual desire when committing an indecent act" as one of the conditions for establishing this crime, and at the same time, when reviewing cases involving the crimes of forcible indecency or insult, it will not be clearly stated in the judgment what criteria are used to determine whether the perpetrator's behavior is "indecent" or "insulting" The distinction is made, resulting in confusion in the application of the offence. Therefore, it is difficult to clarify the relevant ambiguities in judicial practice, resulting in different courts having different understandings and judgments when determining this crime. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research on the judicial determination of the crimes of forcible indecency and insult.
2. Determination of the crime of compulsory indecency or insult
Doctrinal controversies and their commentaries
After the promulgation of the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law, the discussion of the crime of forcible indecency and insult has not been reduced in the legal theory community because the amendment to the crime of forcible indecency and insult has not effectively resolved the controversy existing in the theory of this crime. The core controversy is mainly whether the crime needs to have a specific purpose, the relationship between "indecency" and "insult", and whether the crime is an elective crime.
(1) Discussion of the inner tendency of the crime of indecency
The perpetrator's inner predisposition refers to "a crime in which the act must exhibit the specific inner inclination of the perpetrator, and only when such inner inclination is discovered can the act be considered to be conforming to the constituent elements." "The Criminal Code of the Mainland does not stipulate that the perpetrator of the crime of compulsory indecency or insult needs to have a specific motive or purpose when committing an indecent act, but many scholars believe that the premise of constituting the crime of indecency is that the perpetrator must commit the indecent act with the criminal intent to seek sexual stimulation or satisfy sexual desire. There are also some scholars who believe that the motive for the crime of forcible indecency is "the pursuit of sexual gratification and indecent mental stimulation" through indecent acts.
1. Say yes
According to the view that the crime of indecency is a propensity to commit the crime, in order to determine this crime in judicial practice, it must be proved that the perpetrator had the criminal purpose of seeking sexual stimulation or satisfying sexual desire when committing the indecent act, otherwise the crime of indecency cannot be constituted. This view is traditional. Japanese scholars Hitoshi Otsuka and Senren Sabai believe that the crime of indecency can only be determined if the perpetrator commits an indecent act when the perpetrator is stimulated, aroused, or satisfies the perpetrator's sexual intent. The offence of indecent assault must be committed under the condition of sexual stimulation or gratification of the sexual desires of the perpetrator []. In Germany, the theory and practice of criminal law generally considers it necessary to identify the crime of indecent assault as a crime that should have a criminal tendency, and to define the inner tendency as a subjective element of the crime. The traditional theory of the mainland also advocates that the crimes of forcible indecency and insult must combine the intrinsic intent of the perpetrator with the subjective part of the crime, mainly to avoid the suspicion of objective imputation.
Based on the views of scholars from various countries, the author believes that the first reason for advocating affirmative theory is to demarcate the boundaries between indecent assault and non-criminal offenses, and between this crime and other crimes. For example, in some medical acts, the doctor's treatment that meets the medical standards may objectively show the obvious characteristics of an obscene act, but if the doctor's purpose is not to satisfy sexual desire or emotional stimulation, it will not be regarded as a crime. On 29 January 1970, the Supreme Court of Japan, in its judgment on the incident in which the perpetrator forced a woman to stand naked for five minutes in retaliation by pouring sulfuric acid on the other party, stated: "The crime of forcible indecency under the first paragraph of Article 176 of the Criminal Code is established, requiring that the act be carried out with the sexual intent to stimulate, excite or satisfy the sexual desire of the offender, and that when the perpetrator coerces a woman naked to take photographs for the purpose of revenge, humiliation or abuse of the woman, it constitutes a crime of forcible or other crimes. It does not constitute the crime of forcible indecency. Judging from the above rulings, the crime of forcible indecency is not established if there is no sexual intent to forcibly molest another person. Second, from the perspective of the meaning of the word indecency, the establishment of the crime of indecency requires that the inner tendency to include sexual meaning also falls within the scope of literal interpretation. "Indecency" was first seen in "Yu Chu Xinzhi<口技>", which refers to "the sexual life between husband and wife"; In addition, according to the expression of the Modern Chinese Dictionary, obscenity as a verb means "to make an obscene action", which shows that from the literal point of view, the word "obscenity" is closely related to sexual intent, and has the meaning of seeking sexual stimulation or satisfying desires. On the other hand, the reason why Chinese scholars advocate affirmative theory is mainly based on the reality of China's criminal law, and the current criminal law of the mainland provides for the crimes of forcible indecency, insult and insult at the same time in the sub-provisions of the criminal law. It also means that while both offences protect the personal rights of citizens, they differ in terms of the specific interests protected by law. The crimes of forcible indecency and insult protect the right to sexual autonomy and sexual reputation, while the crime of insult protects the right to human dignity and reputation in the broadest sense. The right to reputation includes the right to sexual reputation, but the principle of the mainland's general application of competing laws is that special law prevails over general law, so it is punished as the crime of forcible indecency and insult. The affirmative theory holds that the crime of indecency takes a specific criminal purpose as a constitutive element, which is the basis for distinguishing between the crimes of forcible indecency and insult and the crimes of insult on the mainland.
2. Negative arguments
Scholars who believe that the crime of indecency does not belong to the crime of inclination say that the establishment of the crime of indecency does not require the perpetrator to have the intent to seek sexual stimulation or satisfy sexual desire, which means that the crime only requires the perpetrator to recognize the harmfulness of his or her indecent act in the subjective aspect. Professor Zhang Mingkai is a representative scholar of the "negation theory", and he stands on the standpoint of objectivism, believing that regardless of whether there is such an inner tendency or not, the objective behavior of the actor violates the sexual rights of others. In addition, since the existence of such an inner tendency can only be clearly known by the perpetrator himself, and there is no objective fact that can concretely reflect the inner tendency, the ignorance of the subjective purpose of the perpetrator does not lead to objective imputation. In fact, when the perpetrator compelled indecent acts against the victim on an irregular occasion, the role of subjective factors would be exaggerated if the conviction was based on whether the perpetrator had the above-mentioned inner tendencies. With regard to the question of the criminalization of a doctor's medical conduct raised by the affirmative theory, the negative theory holds that in the course of medical treatment, as long as the doctor performs normal medical acts, there is no need to criminally prove whether the doctor has a bad intention. The doctor's inner predisposition should only be taken into account if the so-called medical act performed by the doctor goes beyond the general medical norms and causes a substantial violation of the sexual autonomy of the other person.
Nowadays, most scholars in Japan believe that the crime of indecent assault does not require the perpetrator to have the criminal intent to seek sexual stimulation or satisfy sexual desire. Japanese scholar Ryuichi Hirano believes that the crime of forcible indecent assault violates an individual's sexual freedom, and the law should not require the perpetrator to have a specific purpose subjectively, but to require the perpetrator to realize that he is committing an indecent act and will therefore infringe on the sexual freedom of others. Maintaining the same viewpoint, the Japanese scholar Machino Shuo believes that the act carried out by the perpetrator violates the victim's sexual autonomy and sexual shame, and there should be no requirements on the psychology of the perpetrator, as long as the perpetrator has criminal intent, it can constitute the crime of forcible indecency.
There are several reasons in favor of the negative theory: first, although there are many theoretical controversies, in actual legislation, neither the Chinese and Japanese criminal laws stipulate that the establishment of the crime of indecency requires a subjective requirement other than criminal intent; The second is that when the perpetrator commits an objective act of indecency, as long as he realizes that his or her conduct will infringe on the sexual autonomy of others or the sexual shame of women, and maintains an attitude of actively pursuing or resigning the occurrence of harmful results, it is found that he has the criminal intent of this crime, and it is sufficient to establish the crime of indecency. The criminal law protection of civil sexual freedom and sexual reputation should not be constrained by the inner inclination of the perpetrator; Finally, the inner tendency is the subjective activity of the perpetrator, and if the crime of indecency is identified as a propensity offender, it is necessary to collect relevant evidence of the perpetrator's inner inclination in judicial practice, which will lead to greater difficulties in conviction. The distinction between subjective and objective is basically understood within an abstract category, and the argument for the subjective elements in the composition of a crime is itself a difficult problem.
(2) The relationship between "indecency" and "insult" in the crimes of forcible indecency or insult
1. Differentiation says
Scholars who hold this view believe that "indecency" and "insult" belong to different acts, that is, on the premise that the crime of forcible indecency or insult is established, the harmful behavior of the perpetrator can be distinguished as "indecent conduct" or "insulting conduct". Scholars who advocate the distinction theory distinguish between "indecency" and "insult" from different perspectives. From the perspective of the meaning of the word, "indecency" refers to the act carried out by the perpetrator on the basis of satisfying his own sexual desire and sexual stimulation psychology to obstruct the free performance of sexual acts by others. "Insult", on the other hand, refers to the commission of an act that tramples on a woman's personality or violates her sexual dignity. In terms of objective behavior, some scholars distinguish between the two types of behavior by way of enumeration, and clearly list what acts are "indecent acts" and what are "insulting acts". For example, forcibly kissing, hugging, or touching sensitive areas is considered "indecency", while acts such as exposing or rubbing women with their genitals, taking nude photos of women, spraying obscene liquids such as urine and semen, and cutting pubic hair are "insults". From the point of view of the criminal object to which the two acts are directed, "indecent acts" infringe on the right to sexual autonomy and are aimed at all people; "Insults" violate a woman's right to sexual dignity or sexual reputation. In addition, some scholars believe that whether or not physical contact is performed can be used as a criterion for distinguishing between "indecent assault" and that "indecency" is limited to physical contact, while "insult" is not limited to physical contact.
2. Synonyms
Synonymous, also known as the same theory, Professor Zhang Mingkai advocates this kind of theory. It held that "indecency" and "insult" are the same act, and that the legislator's establishment of the mode of conduct for the crime of forcible indecency and insult is a repetitive provision. Some synonymous scholars believe that indecent acts include all acts that hurt a woman's sexual shame and are contrary to good sexual morality, and that insults cannot in any way go beyond this scope. Most scholars in mainland China who hold the "synonymous theory" mainly support the proposition of this theory by refuting the existing shortcomings of the "distinction theory". In addition, some of the acts listed above in the "distinction theory" are not sufficient to be condemned by criminal law in the legislation of some countries or regions, or it is illogical to identify them only as "indecent" or "insulting". For example, it is said that "openly exposing genitals" is an insulting act, but in fact, unlike Article 234 of the Criminal Code of the Taiwan Region of China, which stipulates that "a person who openly commits an act of indecency with the intention of being viewed shall be punished ......", the mainland does not stipulate the crime of "public indecency". Therefore, if the perpetrator did not compel others to pay attention to his exposed genitals, the Chinese criminal law cannot impose a penalty on the perpetrator. In addition, the act of "rubbing a woman with her genitals" is of the same nature as "forcibly kissing, hugging, or touching sensitive parts" and may be considered an indecent act, but the former is considered an "insulting act" while the latter is considered an "indecent act". It can be seen from this that the distinction between "indecency" and "insult" by way of enumeration may lead to deeper doubts in judicial practice regarding the determination of this crime. Finally, both "indecent acts" and "insulting acts" can be carried out through physical contact, and in real life, most of these two acts are accompanied by physical contact, and in this case, it is impossible to distinguish whether the perpetrator's acts of infringing on women's sexual rights through physical contact are "indecent" or "insulting" by whether or not they have physical contact. The criterion of whether physical contact is carried out or not cannot actually solve the difficulty of determining "indecency" and "insult" in judicial practice.
3. Compromise
The compromise theory draws on some of the assertions of the "distinction theory" and the "synonym theory", and it reconciles the opinions of the two to make it moderate. Professor Zhou Guangquan advocates the "compromise theory", he believes that on the one hand, because the "insult" in this crime is within the scope of "indecency" in the nature of the act, in essence, there is no difference between "indecency" and "insult" in this crime, and on the other hand, it can distinguish between the two acts based on whether the perpetrator must have physical contact with the victim as the criterion. In essence, this doctrine is a distinction in another sense, which holds that "indecent acts" and "insulting acts" are not fundamentally different, but they differ in form.
(3) Whether the crime of forcible indecency or insult is a selective crime
Since the crimes of forcible indecency and insult were amended by the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law, due to the increase in the number of targets of crimes, there have been many controversies in the theoretical and practical circles as to whether this crime is a selective crime and which crime should be applied in judicial practice.
There are two views in the theoretical community. The first view is that the crimes of forcible indecency and insult are selective crimes and should be applied in accordance with the provisions on selective crimes. While "forcible indecency" and "forcible humiliation" are both infringements of sexual rights, "forcible indecency" is directed at everyone; However, the object of "coercive insult" cannot be a man, but only a woman. Therefore, in judicial application, the crimes of forcible indecency and forcible insult should be applied respectively according to the different targets of the perpetrator's "indecency" and "insult".
The second view is that "indecency" and "insult" are regarded as one mode of conduct, and the crime is not broken down and applied, that is, this crime is not a selective crime, and should be applied to the crime of forcible indecency and insult as a single crime. The reasons are: first, the criminal act of forcible indecency and insult and the object of the crime can not be used in combination with other selective crimes, such as in the crime of "theft, insult, intentional destruction of corpses, bones, and ashes", the object of theft, insult, or intentional destruction can be either a corpse or a corpse, a corpse, or an ashes. In the crime of forcible indecency and insult, the object of "indecency" can be anyone, while "insult" can only be directed against women. Therefore, the crime is not an election crime; Second, the scope of forcible indecency is sufficient to cover forcible insults, and the legal interests objectively infringed by both are sexual autonomy or sexual reputation. Finally, due to the improper understanding of the respective meanings of "indecency" and "insult" and the distinction between them, many courts have the problem of confusion in the application of crimes when decomposing and applying the crimes of forcible indecency and insult. Therefore, in order to make the application of this crime consistent in judicial practice, the "insulting of women" provided for in the current provisions of the crimes of compulsory indecency and insult can be ignored and not considered.
3. Determination of the crime of forcible indecency or insult
Refine the recommendations
(1) A proper determination of the inner tendency to the crime of forcible indecency or insult
In the author's opinion, even if the perpetrator has a specific criminal purpose is not considered, the crime of forcible indecency and insult can be determined through the actor's objective conduct. Therefore, it is not necessary to define "forcible indecency and insult" as a propensity offense. First of all, scholars who believe that the crimes of forcible indecency and insult belong to the crime of inclination believe that the crime of forcible indecency and insult can be better distinguished from the crime of "forcible indecency and insult" by treating the crime of forcible indecency and insult as a crime of inclination. However, in the author's opinion, the distinction between the crimes of forcible indecency, insult and insult is clear, and the two can be divided according to the objective external act and the legal interests harmed by the act. The legal interests protected by the crimes of forcible indecency and insult are complex and mainly include two contents: one is sexual autonomy, that is, the sexual autonomy of men and the sexual autonomy of women other than sexual intercourse. The object of the crime of insult is the right to personal dignity and reputation of others, and the right to sexual autonomy is obviously not included in it. The second is the sexual dignity and reputation of women, while the crime of insult, although it also protects women's sexual dignity and reputation, is more focused on protecting the other personal dignity and reputation of citizens. The object of the crime of forcible indecency and humiliation is the sexual autonomy of others and the sexual reputation and dignity of women, and the infringement of legal interests by this crime can be objectively manifested. For example, if a man drags a woman naked to the street for everyone to watch, although the act of stripping naked may involve both sexes, the stripping is only a means, and the perpetrator's purpose is to insult the woman, so it is a crime of insult; Conversely, when the perpetrator violates a woman's sexual dignity or right to sexual reputation, the perpetrator's conduct is deemed to be a forcible insult. Therefore, the distinction between "forcible indecency and insult" and "insult" does not require the crime of forcible indecency or insult to be recognized as a tendentious offense. In essence, the key to distinguishing between the two crimes lies in the legal interests infringed by the perpetrator's conduct. For women, the right to sexual reputation or sexual dignity is clearly the most worthy of protection of the right to reputation[]. Accordingly, as long as the perpetrator commits an act that violates the sexual reputation and dignity of a woman, it should be considered to constitute the crime of forcible indecency or insult, but not the crime of insult.
Second, there is a theory of "four elements" in the criminal law of the mainland in terms of the establishment of a crime. Compared with other elements, although the subjective aspect of a crime can be expressed through objective conduct, it is complex and intangible, and there is no clear and specific standard for judgment, and it is impossible for judicial organs to have direct insight into the perpetrator's heart, and in practice, the judgment of the perpetrator's heart is mainly based on the performance of his external behavior. It will increase the subjective discretion of judicial personnel in practical determination and the judicial cost of accurate conviction and sentencing.
Finally, as other scholars who support the crime of forcible indecency and insult are not inclinations, Chinese criminal law does not stipulate a specific inner inclination as one of the elements for the crime to be established. The perpetrator has the criminal intent to commit the crime when committing the indecent act, as long as he realizes that his or her conduct will cause the sexual autonomy of others to be violated, and hopes or allows such a harmful result to occur, he has the criminal intent to commit the crime, and the crime of indecent assault is sufficient. Therefore, although there is a theoretical tendency to commit crimes, this doctrine lacks a clear basis and source support as the basis for judicial verdicts.
The debate over whether forcible indecency and insult requires an inner inclination is actually a debate between the positions of subjectivism and objectivism. In the author's opinion, both in theory and in practice, the mainland criminal law tends to be objectivist in criminal law, biased towards objectivism, and attaches importance to the external behavior of the perpetrator, which can effectively enable the task and purpose of the mainland criminal law to protect legal interests. From this point of view, when determining the crime of forcible indecency or insult, the perpetrator's inner inclination should not be within the scope of consideration, as long as the perpetrator's objective conduct satisfies the characteristics of the crime of indecency, violates the sexual rights of others, and the perpetrator has a subjective intentional state of mind, it should be found to be this crime.
To sum up, whether it is from the specific provisions of the Criminal Law or in the actual judgment, the determination of the crime of forcible indecency and insult does not necessarily take into account whether the perpetrator has the criminal purpose of seeking stimulation or satisfying sexual desire, that is, the crime of forcible indecency or insult is not a tendency to commit.
(2) The proper interpretation of the relationship between "indecency" and "insult" in the crimes of compulsory indecency or insult
After the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law, there are two types of targets for the crime of forcible indecency and insult, one is the "other person" targeted by the indecent act, and the other is the "woman" targeted by the insulting act. In the author's opinion, the legislator must be carefully considered, and the content of the provisions should also be serious and standardized, and since the legislator stipulates indecent acts and insults as two forms of conduct in parallel, there must be differences between them, otherwise the seriousness of the criminal law cannot be reflected.
In the author's opinion, the main objective difference between "indecent assault" and "insulting women" is that according to the current criminal law, the target of indecent acts includes women or men over the age of 14, while the targets of insults are still limited to women. Indecency violates the sexual autonomy of others, while insults violate the sexual dignity and reputation of women. In essence, indecent acts have a strong sense of sexual satisfaction of the perpetrator's self, while insulting acts are more prominently manifested as sexual insults to women.
When the perpetrator commits an indecent act, the act also contains the nature of an insulting act, and "indecency" and "insult" have an inclusive relationship in meaning. However, although "indecency" and "insult" also objectively overlap, it is impossible to say that a person's act of insult is legally defined as "indecency", and there is still a distinction between the two. In general, indecent acts are more explicit in their sexual content, and some insults, although objectively related to sexuality, are more precise and specific in their content that violates a woman's personality and reputation by means of unnatural or abnormal sexual behaviour other than normal sexual behaviour.
It is reasonable to distinguish between "indecency" and "insult", because the mode of conduct of the crimes of compulsory indecency and insult is legislatively provided for that the perpetrator has committed an act of indecency or insult.
(3) An explanation of whether the crime of forcible indecency or insult is a crime of choice
In the author's opinion, in practice, the crimes of forcible indecency and insult should be applied as a single crime, rather than a selective crime. First, while many scholars have tried to argue that "indecency" and "insult" are two different acts, thus providing arguments for the assertion that the crimes of forcible indecency and insult are optional crimes. But in fact, the doctrinal distinction between the two crimes has also been controversial. Some scholars who hold the distinction theory try to distinguish between "indecency" and "insult" from the perspective of objective behavior, arguing that indecent acts require direct physical contact and have obvious sexual content; Insults can be both physical and verbal and do not explicitly contain sexual content. Obviously, this view does not respond to the doubts of the theoretical community, and it does not really solve practical problems. This is because even if the insult does not presuppose direct physical contact, some direct contact with a woman's body of a sexual nature may still be considered a coercive insult. Some scholars believe that the key to distinguishing between these two types of behavior lies in the difference in the subjective motivation of the perpetrators. Professor MacChang believes that "the key to distinguishing between the two is whether the actor has an inner tendency to stimulate and satisfy sexual desire". In other words, the act of violating a woman's sexual shame for the purpose of picking quarrels and provoking troubles or retaliation is not an act of indecency, but an act of insult, and only an act that has an inner tendency to seek excitement and satisfy sexual desire is an act of indecency. However, as mentioned above, the distinction between the two types of behavior from the subjective aspect not only expands the role of subjectivism and is difficult to verify, but also cannot deny that there are cases in which the actor subjectively has the psychology of satisfying sexual desires, sexual stimulation and revenge. To sum up, whether it is from the perspective of the objective behavior of physical contact or from the perspective of subjective motives with certain criminal purposes, the distinction between "indecency" and "insult" cannot be completely obtained from the standard of distinction that is operational in practice, and the prerequisite for the decomposition and application of the crime of "forcible indecency and insult" is that a clear distinction can be made between "indecency" and "insult". Therefore, the decomposition and application of crimes in the absence of a practical distinction may lead to confusion in the application of the charges by the courts. In addition, even if the relationship between "indecency" and "insult" can be clearly distinguished, this cannot be used as a reason for the crime of compulsory indecency and insult to be a selective crime, because the types of selective crimes provided for in the mainland criminal law include object selection, behavior selection, or object and behavior selection, while the targets of the two acts in the crime of compulsory indecency and insult are not the same, and do not conform to the characteristics of the mainland's selective crimes.
Second, although the targets of the two modes of conduct in the crimes of forcible indecency and insult are not the same, the difference in the targets of the crimes is not sufficient to justify the decomposition and application of the crimes. After the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law came into effect, some scholars believed that it was precisely because of the different targets of the acts that the crimes of forcible indecency and insult should not be recognized as a single crime. However, in the author's opinion, even if the targets of the two acts in the crimes of forcible indecency and insult are different, this does not affect the application of this crime as a single crime. Whether it is forcible indecency with another person or forcible humiliation of a woman, or forcible indecency with another person and forcible humiliation of a woman at the same time, these circumstances can be found to be the crime of forcible indecency or insult, and the crime as a whole applies. This is because there are two types of conduct in the crime of forcible indecency and insult, and as long as one of them is met, it is considered to constitute the crime of forcible indecency and insult. Where the perpetrator is coerced to indecent assault on another person and at the same time forcibly humiliates a woman, it may be found that the perpetrator's conduct satisfies all the modes of conduct for the crime of forcible indecency or insult, and is to be convicted of the crime of forcible indecency or insult; However, for acts of forcible indecency and insult that are carried out again within a period of time after the perpetrator has forcibly molested another person, the crime of forcible indecency or insult may still be convicted on the basis of the principle that the same type of crime is punished together and not for multiple crimes.
Finally, there is no unified understanding in the legal profession as to whether the crime of forcible indecency and insult is a selective crime or a single crime, which leads to the confusion of the application of this crime in judicial practice. At the same time, the difficult problem of distinguishing between "indecent acts" and "insulting acts" has not been solved, so in order to solve the problem of the application of the crimes of compulsory indecency and insult and the distinction of acts at the same time, the application of the crimes of compulsory indecency and insult as a single crime in practice can better reflect the uniformity of the application of the criminal law.
To sum up, judicial practice should treat the crimes of forcible indecency and insult as a single crime, so as to ensure that this crime is uniformly applied in judicial practice and effectively avoid confusion in judicial application.
epilogue
With the progress of society and the development of the times, civil rights have been paid more and more attention, and people have the courage to take up the weapon of the law to defend against violations of sexual rights. The crimes of forcible indecency and insult are one of the important crimes in the mainland to protect citizens' sexual rights, but from the perspective of judicial practice, there is still a lot of room for improvement in the legal provisions on the crimes of forcible indecency and insult.
bibliography
[1] Zhang Mingkai, Outline of Foreign Criminal Law (Second Edition), Tsinghua University Press, 2007.
[2] Chen Jialin, "Analysis of the Crimes of Compulsory Indecency and Insult after the Amendment to the Criminal Law (IX)", Journal of Soochow University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), No. 3, 2016.
[3] Gao Mingxuan, Ma Chang (eds.), Criminal Law (10th Edition), Peking University Press, 2022.
[4] Zhou Guangquan: Monographs on Criminal Law, Chinese University Press, 2011.
[5] Wang Chuang, "Research on Several Issues of Forced Indecency and Insult", master's thesis, Heilongjiang University, 2019.
[6] Bian Shuhua, "Re-study of the Crimes of Forced Indecency and Insult", master's thesis of Soochow University, 2018.
[7] Zhang Mingkai, "Principles of Interpretation of Criminal Law Sub-Rules", Chinese Renmin University Press, 2011 edition.
[8] Duan Yangwei and Shu Honghong, "The Determination of the Crime of Compulsory Indecency and Insult: An Analysis Based on Article 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment (IX)", Hebei Law Science, No. 5, 2017.
[9] Wang Zhengxun, "Legal Doctrine Analysis of the Constitutive Elements of the Crimes of Forced Indecency and Insult: A Study Based on the Theory of Archetypal Categories", Legal Science (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), No. 4, 2018.
[10] Zhang Mingkai, Criminal Law (Sixth Edition), Law Press, 2021 edition.
[11] Zhang Mingkai, Li Hong, Zhou Guangquan, "Exploration of New Issues in Criminal Law", Tsinghua University Press, 2003.
[12] Dang Rihong, "On the Determination of the Crime of Compulsory Indecency and Insult", Journal of China Women's University, No. 4, 2016.
[13] Yang Caixia, Su Qing, "The Dilemma and Way Out of the Judicial Application of the Crime of Compulsory Insult", Journal of the Police College, No. 4, 2019.
[14] Zhao Bingzhi, Contemporary Criminal Law, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2009.
[15] Ma Chang, The General Theory of a Hundred Sins (Volume I), Peking University Press, 2014.
Producer: Zhang Yongjiang
Author: Xu Yuqin, 2022 master's degree student in law (law) at Xiangtan University
Editor: Xu Yuqin
Editor-in-charge: Peng Xiaodi
Review: Zhang Yongjiang
WeChat public account|Hunan Provincial Criminal Rule of Law Research Association
Sina Weibo|@湖南省刑事法治研究会
Today's headlines|Hunan Provincial Criminal Rule of Law Research Association