问题 问答题

材料:
案例一:2005年9月15日,B市的家庭主妇张某在家中利用计算机ADSL拨号上网,以E话通的方式,使用视频与多人共同进行“裸聊”被公安机关查获。对于本案,B市S区检察院以聚众淫乱罪向S区法院提起公诉,后又撤回起诉。
案例二:从2006年11月到2007年5月,Z省L县的无业女子方某在网上从事有偿“裸聊”,“裸聊”对象遍及全国22个省、自治区、直辖市,在电脑上查获的聊天记录就有300多人,网上银行汇款记录1000余次,获利2.4万元。对于本案,Z省L县检察院以传播淫秽物品牟利罪起诉,L县法院以传播淫秽物品牟利罪判处方某有期徒刑6个月,缓刑1年,并处罚金5000元。
关于上述两个网上“裸聊”案,在司法机关处理过程中,对于张某和方某的行为如何定罪存在以下三种意见:第一种意见认为应定传播淫秽物品罪(张某)或者传播淫秽物品牟利罪(方某);第二种意见认为应定聚众淫乱罪;第三种意见认为“裸聊”不构成犯罪。
答题要求:
1.在综合分析基础上,提出观点并运用法学知识阐述理由;
2.观点明确,论证充分,逻辑严谨,文字通顺;
3.不少于500字,不必重复案情。
《刑法》参考条文:
第三条法律明文规定为犯罪行为的,依照法律定罪处刑;法律没有明文规定为犯罪行为的,不得定罪处刑。
第三百六十三条(第一款) 以牟利为目的,制作、复制、出版、贩卖、传播淫秽物品的,处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制,并处罚金;情节严重的,处三年以上十年以下有期徒刑,并处罚金;情节特别严重的,处十年以上有期徒刑或者无期徒刑,并处罚金或者没收财产。
第三百六十四条(第一款) 传播淫秽的书刊、影片、音像、图片或者其他淫秽物品,情节严重的,处二年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制。
第三百零一条(第一款) 聚众进行淫乱活动的,对首要分子或者多次参加的,处五年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制。
第三百六十七条 本法所称淫秽物品,是指具体描绘性行为或者露骨宣扬色情的诲淫性的书刊、影片、录像带、录音带、图片及其他淫秽物品。
有关人体生理、医学知识的科学著作不是淫秽物品。
包含有色情内容的有艺术价值的文学、艺术作品不视为淫秽物品。
1.问题1:
以上述两个网上“裸聊”案为例,从法理学的角度阐述法律对个人自由干预的正当性及其限度

答案

参考答案:罪刑法定原则的经典表述是:“法无明文规定不为罪,法无明文规定不处罚”。设立此原则的目的就在于保障 * * ,防止司法擅断,保护无罪的人不受刑事追究,保护犯罪嫌疑人、被告人不受滥刑滥罚。依照该原则,要将任何行为认定为犯罪,都必须有法律的明确规定;无论该行为有多么恶劣,对社会造成了多么严重的危害,只要法律没有事先将其规定为犯罪,也只能作无罪处理。我国刑法第3条明确规定了罪刑法定原则:“法律明文规定为犯罪行为的,依照法律定罪处刑;法律没有明文规定为犯罪行为的,不得定罪处刑。”因此,一种行为是否构成犯罪,就应当仅仅取决于我国刑法是否已经将其规定为犯罪,网上“裸聊”也概莫能外。在题目给出的两个案件中,网上“裸聊”行为共涉及到传播淫秽物品罪、传播淫秽物品牟利罪和聚众淫乱罪三个罪名,下文将一一分析。
首先,网上“裸聊”行为不构成传播淫秽物品罪或传播淫秽物品牟利罪。依照《刑法》第363条、第364条和第367条的规定,传播淫秽物品罪和传播淫秽物品牟利罪,传播的都是淫秽物品,而淫秽物品是指具体描绘性行为或者露骨宣传色情的诲淫性的书刊、影片、录像带、录音带、图片及其他淫秽物品。而裸聊则是将自己的身体裸露给他人看。那么“人的身体”是否能解释为“其他淫秽物品”呢显然,依照社会的一般概念,物品的通常含义不能包含“人的身体”,如果将“人的身体”强行解释为“物品”,则有类推解释之嫌,这是对罪刑法定原则的公然违反。当然,如果行为人展示的是裸体照片,或者事先录制的裸体视频,则有可能构成传播淫秽物品罪。
其次,网上“裸聊”行为不构成聚众淫乱罪。聚众淫乱罪是指聚众进行淫乱活动的行为。本罪侵犯的法益是社会的风化。刑法规定本罪并不只是因为该行为违反了伦理秩序,而是因为这种行为侵害了公众对性的感情。因此,三个以上的成年人,基于相互同意所秘密实施的性行为,因为没有侵害公众对性的感情,故不属于刑法规定的聚众淫乱行为。只有当三人以上以不特定人或者多数人可能认识到的方式实施淫乱行为时,才宜以本罪论处。网络虽然有空间之名,但无空间之实。“裸聊”者在这个虚拟的空间里进行淫乱活动,具有一定的私密性,且不具有空间的一致性,并不能构成聚众淫乱罪。
由此可见,案例一中的检察院撤回起诉的决定是合法的,而案例二中的法院则作出了有悖罪刑法定原则的判罚。罪刑法定原则是民主和 * * 在刑法领域的具体体现,具有至高无上的价值和意义,必须得到彻底的遵循。随着时间的发展,法律会体现出一定的滞后性,甚至显现出一定的漏洞。即使在这种情况下,也必须通过立法进行修补,而不能由司法机关越俎代庖。如此一来可能会放纵一些严重危害社会的犯罪,但这是建设法治国家所必须付出的代价。

单项选择题
单项选择题

To be a good friend, you have to give of yourself, nonetheless not so much that you lose yourself. This is a pretty predictable recipe for happiness. Giving to others—a reliable way of fostering friendships—makes us happier than taking things for ourselves. In the light of research led by Dr. Elizabeth Dunn at the University of British Columbia, money can purchase happiness...on the prerequisite that you utilize it on other people.

Researchers administered three studies consecutively. First, they surveyed more than 600 Americans and found that spending money on gifts and charities led to greater happiness than spending money on oneself.

Subsequently they probed into workers who had just received bonuses and observed that their happiness did not hinge on the size of their bonus but on the decision they made about what to do with whatever amount of money they received. Those who spent more of their bonus on others were happier than those who spent the money on themselves.

Finally, the researchers simply distributed money to a good many subjects, instructing some to spend the money on themselves and others to spend the money on others. At the end of the day, the ones who spent money on others were a good deal happier.

As a consequence, having friends and treating them generously is clearly a winning strategy in life. But what about in business

If you watch even a single episode of any reality TV show based on a competition, such as The Apprentice, you’ll hear a single phrase crop up more often than any other: "I’m not here to make friends!" Is that true Are we better off being cutthroat than collaborative

Once you’re on the job, having a best friend at work is a p predictor of ensuing success. People might define "best" loosely (think of this as kindergarten where you can have more than one "best" friend), but according to a Gallup Organization study of more than 5 million workers over 35, 56% of the people who say they have a best friend at work are engaged, productive, and successful while only 8% of the ones who don’t are.

Another remarkable study, spanning decades, revealed that friendships in high school were an effective predictor of increased wages in adulthood—to the tune of 2% per person who considered you a close friend. To put it otherwise, if in high school three people regarded you as one of their closest same-sex friends, your earnings in adulthood work would be 6% higher.

The happy truth is that the competitors who say they’re not here to make friends don’t win eventually. That’s true for reality TV, for business, and for life as well.

According to the passage, it would be better for high-school students to()

A. make more close friends

B. learn to give of themselves

C. work more often in collaboration with other students

D. have a plan to gain a high paid job after graduation