Grok

基于弗里德里希·卡尔·冯·萨维尼（Friedrich Carl von Savigny）历史法学派核心思想的陈京元“寻衅滋事罪”案分析评论

An Analysis of the Chen Jingyuan “Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble” Case Based on Friedrich Carl von Savigny’s Core Ideas in the Historical School of Jurisprudence

中文版 Chinese Version

弗里德里希·卡尔·冯·萨维尼（Friedrich Carl von Savigny，1779-1861），德国法学家，历史法学派（Historical School of Jurisprudence）的创始人，其核心思想强调法律源于民族精神（Volksgeist），是历史有机发展的产物，反对抽象的自然法或理性法典（如拿破仑法典），主张法律应从民族传统与习俗中演化，法官的任务是解释和维护现有法律的“精神”，而非任意创造新法。 在《论罗马法在我们的时代中的当代使命》（Vom Beruf unserer Zeit für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft，1814）中，他视法律为“民族灵魂”的体现，批判抽象立法为“外来强加”。 本案中，陈京元博士因X平台转发艺术作品、时政观点等内容（粉丝不足百人、互动近零），被以“寻衅滋事罪”判处有期徒刑一年八个月，程序中充斥主观推定、剥夺自辩与选择性执法。从萨维尼视角，此案非民族法律精神的维护，而是抽象独断背离历史演化：摧毁传统表达自由，违背法律有机性的根本信念。

Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779-1861), German jurist and founder of the Historical School of Jurisprudence, centered his ideas on law originating from the national spirit (Volksgeist), as an organic product of historical development, opposing abstract natural law or rational codification (e.g., Napoleonic Code), advocating law’s evolution from national traditions and customs, with judges interpreting and upholding the “spirit” of existing law, not arbitrarily creating new ones. In Of the Vocation of Our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence (1814), he viewed law as embodiment of the “national soul,” critiquing abstract legislation as “foreign imposition.” In this case, Dr. Chen Jingyuan, an independent scholar, was sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” due to forwarding artistic works and political commentary on X (formerly Twitter)—with fewer than 100 followers and near-zero engagement—amid procedural flaws like subjective presumption, denial of self-defense, and selective enforcement. From Savigny’s viewpoint, this is not preservation of national legal spirit but abstract fiat violating historical evolution: annihilating traditional expressive liberty, betraying law’s organic nature.

一、萨维尼历史法学派核心思想概述：民族精神与法律有机演化

二、以萨维尼历史法学派核心思想评析本案

II. Analysis of the Case Based on Savigny’s Core Ideas in the Historical School of Jurisprudence

  1. 抽象独断背离民族精神演化：违背法律有机连续性原则 萨维尼视法律为民族精神有机演化，反对抽象法典独断。 本案判决将陈京元转发的情感表达（如讽刺帖）、理性观点（如智库报告）与艺术作品（如漫画隐喻）泛化为“虚假言论”，无证据证明危害，却以主观“明知”推定判“寻衅滋事”，背离民族表达传统。 账号数据显示零互动、无历史连续性断裂，却被“梳理”为“铁证”，这正是萨维尼斥的抽象强加：司法未从民间习俗（数字表达）演化解释，而是法典式独断，摧毁法律有机性。 萨维尼若在，必判此不民族——非精神维护，乃抽象暴政。

  2. Abstract Fiat Betraying National Spirit Evolution: Violating Organic Continuity Principles Savigny viewed law as organic evolution of national spirit, opposing abstract codification fiat. The judgment categorizes Dr. Chen’s forwarded emotional expressions (e.g., satirical posts), rational opinions (e.g., think tank reports), and artistic works (e.g., metaphorical cartoons) as “false statements,” without evidence of harm, presuming “knowing falsehood” for “picking quarrels,” betraying national expressive traditions. Account data shows zero engagement, no historical continuity rupture, yet “collated” as “ironclad evidence”—precisely Savigny’s abstract imposition critique: judiciary fails evolution from folk customs (digital expression), fiat codification-style, destroying law’s organic nature. Savigny would deem this non-national—not spirit preservation, but abstract tyranny.

  3. 司法解释缺失与历史连续性失衡：背离民间习俗与精神统一 萨维尼强调法官通过历史解释维护法律精神统一。 陈京元转发系民间习俗表达（如复杂系统引用），源于民族数字传统，却被禁自辩（庭审“闭嘴”）、拒转控控书，程序中“选择性执法”（党媒同类未责）忽略连续性，背离统一。 这违背萨维尼：法律须从习俗演化解释，非独断；历史连续性需民间基础，非权威强加。 萨维尼批判：此案非法，乃对连续性之战。

  4. Absence of Judicial Interpretation and Imbalanced Historical Continuity: Betraying Folk Customs and Spiritual Unity Savigny stressed judges maintain law’s spiritual unity through historical interpretation. Dr. Chen’s forwards represent folk custom expression (e.g., complex systems citations), rooted in national digital traditions, yet he was denied self-defense (courtroom “silencing”), his indictment letter rejected, and selective enforcement ignored continuity (state media reposts unpunished), violating unity. This violates Savigny: law requires evolutionary interpretation from customs, not fiat; historical continuity needs folk foundation, not authority imposition. Savigny indicts: this is unlawful, war on continuity.

  5. 法律精神失衡：荒谬警示与民族危机 萨维尼视法律精神为民族灵魂。 陈京元Bio自嘲“作案工具”，帖文存网无人关注，却判20月，荒谬如萨维尼比喻“抽象法典如外来者”——推定“罪名”失精神连续，扭曲民族，制造危机。 这警示：失衡精神，永固抽象。

  6. Imbalanced Legal Spirit: Absurd Warning and National Crisis Savigny saw legal spirit as national soul. Dr. Chen’s bio mocks his account as a “tool of crime,” with posts lingering online unheeded, yet earning 20 months—absurd like Savigny’s “abstract code like foreigner”: presuming “crime” lacks spiritual continuity, twisting nationality, breeding crisis. This warns: imbalanced spirit entrenches abstraction.

三、结语：重振民族演化，推动法律新生

III. Conclusion: Reviving National Evolution for Law’s Rebirth

萨维尼历史法学派视本案为悲剧：抽象背离精神，解释缺失失连续，永固独断危机。陈京元自辩如萨维尼习俗呼吁，重审恢复历史解释，方能让法律在民族中新生。 如萨维尼所言：“法律源于民族精神。”唯有以此衡，方避“抽象”成“公敌”，推动人文演化。

Savigny’s Historical School sees this case as tragedy: abstraction betrays spirit, interpretation absence forfeits continuity, entrenching fiat crisis. Dr. Chen’s defense echoes Savigny’s custom call, urging retrial to restore historical interpretation, allowing law to rebirth in nationality. As Savigny stated: “Law originates from national spirit.” Only thus can we avert “abstraction” as “public enemy,” advancing humanistic evolution.