Women and Justice: Keywords

The criminal provision governing human trafficking, Article 240 (“trafficking in women or children”), defines it as abducting, kidnapping, buying, trafficking or transporting women for sale. The prescribed sentence ranges from 5-0 years. Longer sentences, including life imprisonment, can apply in eight specific circumstances when the offender: (1) leads a trafficking group, (2) traffics more than three women and/or children, (3) rapes abducted women, (4) coerces abducted women into prostitution, (5) using violence or drug, (6) stealing infants or young children, (7) inflicts severe injuries or death to victims or their relatives, and (8) sells abducted women abroad. The death penalty may apply in highly severe cases. The most important feature of Amendment IX is criminalizing the purchase of abducted women or children. Previously, the original text in 1997 law allowed leniency for buyers not obstructing rescue efforts. However, Amendment IX (Article 241) offers this leniency only to co-operative buyers through lighter or mitigated punishments. This change is a significant as a clean criminal record is crucial for employment in China. Article 241 also directs judges to apply relevant criminal provisions to buyers who commit severe violent crimes like rape, unlawful detention, injuries, or insults against abducted women and children.

《中国人民共和国刑法》中第二百四十条（“拐卖妇女、儿童罪”）中将人口拐卖定义为拐骗、绑架、收买、贩麦或接送妇女进行买卖。规定的刑期从 五年到十 年不等。在以下八种特定情况下，犯罪者可被判处更长的刑期，包括终身监禁：（1）领导贩运团伙；（2）贩运 三名以上妇女和/或儿童；（3）强奸被拐卖妇女；（4）强迫被拐卖妇女卖淫；（5）使用暴力或毒品；（6）偷窃婴幼儿；（7）造成受害者或其亲属严重受伤或死亡；（8）将被拐卖妇女卖到国外。情节极其严重的，可判处死刑。修正案 IX 的最大特点是将购买被拐妇女或儿童的行为定为刑事犯罪。在此之前，1997 年法律的原始文本允许对不妨碍营救工作的购买者从宽处理。但是，第九修正案（第 241 条）仅通过对体现合作意识的购买者给予宽大处理。这一变化意义重大，因为无犯罪记录对于在中国就业至关重要。第二百四十条还指示法官对犯有强奸、非法拘禁、伤害或其他严重暴力罪行的买家适用相关刑事条款。

The defendant committed acts of obscenity upon a young girl. He alleged that it was only for a monetary purpose—to record the act and give the recording to his acquaintance in return for receiving a loan —and that he had no sexual intent. The defendant appealed the High Court’s ruling that sexual intent is not required to establish a prima facie case of indecent assault, which is proscribed by Article 176 of the Japanese Penal Code. He argued that the High Court’s finding was inconsistent with judicial precedent holding that sexual intent is an element of the crime. The Supreme Court, upon noting that the scope of sexual crimes cannot be properly determined without taking into account the views of contemporary society, found that, in the present day, the focus should be on the existence, details, and extent of sexual damage caused to a victim rather than an assailant’s intent. Thus, the Supreme Court, upheld the High Court’s finding and overturned the 47-year-old jurisprudence. The Court found that, while it could not deny that there may be a situation in which the sexual intent of a perpetrator becomes an important factor in finding the crime, it was not reasonable to uniformly require the existence of such a factor for the crime of indecent assault.

被告人は、金を借りようとしたところ、金を貸す条件として若い女の子にわいせつ行為を行い、その行為を撮影するよう指示された。被告人はこれに関して、その行為の目的は金銭を得ることであり、性的意図はなかったと主張した。被告人は、刑法第176条の強制わいせつ罪の成立には性的意図が必要で、高裁判決は以前の判例に違反するとして、強制わいせつ罪が成立するとした高裁判決を不服とした。最高裁は、性犯罪の範囲は社会の受け止め方を考慮しなければ処罰対象を適切に決することができないとし、現代においては、加害者の意図だけでなく、被害者に与えた性的被害の有無、内容、程度に焦点を当てるべきであると判断し、加害者の性的意図が犯罪認定の重要な要素となる場合はあるが、強制わいせつ罪にこの要素の存在を一律に要求することは妥当ではないとして、高裁判決を支持した。