Background: Human trafficking is one of the most hated crimes, and there are countless discussions on the mainland based on it, but similar "blind mountain" cases are still in the news from time to time.
Among such crimes, compared with the heavier punishment of the crime of abduction and trafficking of women, the punishment for bribing abducted women is relatively light, which raises many doubts.
The Criminal Law stipulates that the crime of abduction and trafficking in women is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not less than five years but not more than ten years, while the crime of bribing abducted and trafficked women is a fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance.
At the same time, because of the lighter penalties, probation can often be applied. Therefore, in the actual situation, people who buy children and wives can always go to jail, which makes people feel uneven.
In view of this actual situation, Teacher Luo Xiang vividly gave a very famous example: "Buying a panda will be sentenced to ten years, buying two parrots will be sentenced to five years, but I only buy a person for the highest three years."
This clever irony of the contrast between man and animal, along with the fame of Teacher Luo Xiang and the exposure of the eight-child case in Feng County, has attracted the attention of many people, and the criticism of this crime and light punishment has become more and more serious.
At this moment, Professor Che Hao, a law professor at Peking University, issued a long article, putting forward the view that the punishment for the crime of bribing abducted women does not need to be raised, which is undoubtedly a stone that stirs up thousands of waves.
Since the scholar who most famously supported heavy punishment among the public before was Teacher Luo Xiang, and there are several places in the article that mention Teacher Luo's examples and views, everyone generally expects him to respond.
As a result, he did not live up to expectations, and expounded his views on the evening of the same day, giving his reasons for supporting heavy penalties.
The analysis of both professors is well-founded, amazing, and beneficial after reading it.
However, because both articles are long, they have to be briefly understood in chronological order and in multiple articles.
In sequence, this article mainly discusses the first two reasons in Professor Che Hao's view of the light punishment of this crime, and the rest of the views are written. No more repeating the background.
Dharma Eye Insight:
First of all, it should be made clear that the more reasoned the more clear it is, the more clear it is, and Professor Che himself deeply resents the sale of women, believing that they must be made a crime.
Professor Che's willingness to explore the view of light sentences in the mainstream environment of heavy punishment undoubtedly requires greater courage.
The following is a categorical discussion based on the mainstream issues of the public and Professor Che's views:
1. Question: Why is the sentence for trafficking in women heavier and the sentence for bribing women lighter? There is no harm without buying and selling, and the two are equally sinful, so why not punish them equally heavily?
Is it reasonable to buy and sell women to be "target offenders" (such as bribery and bribery), but the penalties for the two are very different?
Professor Luo believes that the punishment of target offenders is generally quite common, and the difference between abducting and selling women and bribing women is a special situation, and it should be revised to make it more reasonable.
Professor Che believes that there are indeed many examples of the punishment of the target offender, but it cannot be said that the setting of this crime is unreasonable.
This is because among the target offenders, there are still cases where the "purchasing" party is not a crime at all. For example, the purchase of invoices and the purchase of drugs for personal use.
If, by comparing it with the offenders with the same punishment, it is possible to conclude that the crime of bribing women is currently relatively light and unreasonable, how should we compare it with the situation that is not a crime at all?
Conclusion: Therefore, the evaluation of the punishment between "target offenders" cannot be simply categorized as who is lighter and who is heavier. Instead, it should be compared whether the object of the crime and the content of the legal benefits of the two are comparable.
Commenting on this, Professor Che believes that there is a clear difference between buying women and selling women.
2. Question: Why is the sentence for buying a parrot so heavy, but buying a woman is so light, is the law considering human rights to be inferior to animals?
For these two, Professor Che also believes that there should be no simple analogy, and there is a big difference between "buying people" and "buying animals". The current bribery of women is in itself highly likely to impose heavy penalties.
"Buying animals" can only punish "purchasing behavior", and if the "purchasing behavior" is not punished, there is no room for subsequent criminal law to apply.
This is because rare animals themselves do not have basic legal benefits such as dignity and freedom, and naturally there is no room for violation.
The purpose of the purchaser is either to sell or to breed, and in general, there is no need for abuse.
But the situation is very different for those who buy women, and the universal or even the only purpose is to "pass on the generations"!
In this case, all men who purchase women, except in very special cases, are almost inevitably accompanied by serious violent crimes such as rape!
Even if there is no "rape", then as long as the woman resists or wants to leave, and the man blocks it with violence and other means, it must be accompanied by abuse and illegal detention.
That is to say, in general, those who want to bribe women with serious crimes are severely punished, and even the crime of buying abducted women does not have to be exposed at all.
Because the maximum penalty for rape and intentional injury is the death penalty, it can no longer be increased in severity.
Conclusion: It is considered that the punishment for bribing a woman who has been trafficked is light only because the other charges of the offender have not been seen.
3. Problem: Buying and selling women as goods is a materialization of women and harms personal dignity, and the act of purchasing itself should be criminalized and severely punished!
Personally, I think Professor Che may feel that this view has little practical value after being freed from the physical and mental harm to women. (Pure personal understanding!) ）
And the argument is quite a bit of black humor. (Physical and mental injury has its own methods such as "intentional injury crime" and "compensation for mental damage")
"Man is the end, not the means" as a famous saying is very popular, but life is full of situations of selling personal dignity, body, and brain power for money, and the masses are not different.
In terms of legal marriage and love alone, it is full of dowries, online payment of fees and friends, offline hiring of matchmakers "sales" and so on.
If only "objectifying women", "harming dignity", etc. are used as the basis for severely punishing "bribery", how should "prostitution and prostitution" be evaluated, and should the buyer and seller be criminalized?
As for the objection to the "prostitute voluntarily", Professor Che's two rhetorical questions are very clever, making people feel speechless.
First, for women who are being abused and scolded by human traffickers, how to evaluate the behavior of men who pay for their rescue?
Second, for vietnamese daughters-in-law and others who are becoming more and more "prosperous", how to evaluate their behavior of even paying a part of their own money and letting traffickers sell themselves?
In the first act, the woman is involuntary and the man has a "purchasing act" and should be convicted and punished. But in fact, the man's behavior has actually lifted the woman out of the predicament.
If the man has subsequent sexual assault and other activities, the crime of rape and other aggravated punishment.
But if they only buy and do not subsequently commit any illegal acts such as sexual assault or abuse, how should they be evaluated?
After all, the woman was already in a state of coercion and control when she was abducted, and after the purchase, it actually protected the rights and interests of the woman and avoided her being abused.
In the second act, the woman is even voluntary, wanting to get out of poverty by selling herself, not expecting or even opposing the law to "save" herself.
Faced with this situation, there are only two ways to deal with it:
(1) It is considered that this offence only harms the rights and interests of the individual and therefore does not require punishment. (Note: By agreeing with this view, you acknowledge the existence of a "legal" human trafficking!) ）
(2) The belief that the human dignity that women cannot objectify is more important and therefore needs to be punished.
The first view is clearly unacceptable. And if the second view is accepted, it cannot be denied that the husbands who punish such voluntary women must be different, and need to be punished lightly or even without punishment.
If voluntary trafficking and forced trafficking are equated with punishment, it will obviously lead to judicial injustice, and even encounter ridiculous scenes of voluntary women violently resisting the law to "save themselves".
Conclusion: In the current legislation, it is possible to give a light sentence or even no jail sentence to a criminal with little malignancy, and to order himself (rape) for serious consequences.
And if the minimum penalty is raised directly for the sake of severe punishment, it will inevitably lead to judicial injustice.
Professor Che's original text is longer, and this article is only a personal understanding of the first two of his five discussions, which is limited by space, and the subsequent article has to be discussed.
What do you think of Professor Che's point of view? Do you think he convinced you?