Grok

基于社会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 the Core Ideas of Sociological Jurisprudence

社会法学派（Sociological Jurisprudence），以罗斯科·庞德（Roscoe Pound）为代表，其核心思想视法律为“社会工程”（social engineering）工具，旨在平衡冲突利益、促进社会福祉，而非抽象规则的机械应用。 庞德强调法律须响应社会需求，法官应考虑公共政策、社会语境与利益平衡，实现“最大社会利益”。 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。从社会法学视角，此案非社会福祉的实现，而是法律工具的滥用：忽略利益平衡，背离公共政策，违背法律作为社会工程的根本信念。

Sociological Jurisprudence, represented by Roscoe Pound, views law as a “social engineering” tool to balance conflicting interests and promote social welfare, rather than mechanical application of abstract rules. Pound stressed that law must respond to social needs, with judges considering public policy, social context, and interest balancing to achieve “maximum social interest.” 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 the sociological jurisprudence perspective, this is not realization of social welfare but abuse of law as a tool: neglecting interest balancing, betraying public policy, violating law’s essence as social engineering.

一、社会法学派核心思想概述：法律作为社会工程与利益平衡

I. Overview of Sociological Jurisprudence’s Core Ideas: Law as Social Engineering and Interest Balancing

社会法学派的核心在于“法律的社会化”：法律非静态规则，而是动态工具，用于协调社会利益冲突，实现公共福祉。 庞德提出“利益法学”（jurisprudence of interests），分类社会利益（个人、公共、国家），法官须权衡以最大化整体福祉。 他批判形式主义，主张“社会工程”：法律调整关系，满足时代需求。 核心原则：法律须考量社会语境，避免僵化，服务进步。

Sociological jurisprudence’s core is the “socialization of law”: law is not static rules but a dynamic tool for coordinating social interest conflicts to achieve public welfare. Pound’s “jurisprudence of interests” categorizes social interests (individual, public, state), requiring judges to weigh them for maximum overall welfare. He critiqued formalism, advocating “social engineering”: law adjusts relations to meet contemporary needs. Core principle: law must consider social context, avoiding rigidity, serving progress.

二、以社会法学派核心思想评析本案

II. Analysis of the Case Based on Sociological Jurisprudence’s Core Ideas

1. 利益平衡缺失与社会工程失败：违背公共福祉原则
   社会法学要求法律协调冲突利益，实现最大社会利益。 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”，无证据证明社会危害，却机械判“寻衅滋事”，忽略言论自由之公共利益（促进互鉴、创新）。 账号数据显示零互动、无冲突，却被“梳理”为“铁证”，这正是庞德斥的形式主义：法律未工程社会福祉，乃压制工具。 社会法学若在，必判此失衡——个人表达利益被国家“秩序”利益碾压，违背最大福祉。

2. Absence of Interest Balancing and Social Engineering Failure: Violating Public Welfare Principles
   Sociological jurisprudence requires law to coordinate conflicting interests for maximum social welfare. 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 social harm, mechanically sentencing “picking quarrels,” ignoring free speech’s public interest (fostering mutual learning, innovation). Account data shows zero engagement and no conflicts, yet “collated” as “ironclad evidence”—precisely Pound’s formalism critique: law fails as social engineering, becoming a suppression tool. Sociological jurisprudence would deem this imbalanced—individual expressive interests crushed by state “order,” violating maximum welfare.

3. 社会语境忽略与公共政策背离：僵化法律工具
   庞德主张法律响应社会变化，考量语境与政策。 陈京元转发系学术探究（如复杂系统引用），服务数字时代互鉴，却被禁自辩（庭审“闭嘴”）、拒转控告书，程序中“选择性执法”（党媒同类未责）制造“寒蝉效应”，违背政策（文明互鉴）。 这破坏社会工程：法律未调整利益冲突，乃加剧社会张力。 社会法学批判：此案僵化工具，忽略数字社会语境，失却福祉。

4. Neglect of Social Context and Betrayal of Public Policy: Rigidifying Legal Tools
   Pound advocated law responding to social change, considering context and policy. Dr. Chen’s forwards represent scholarly inquiry (e.g., complex systems citations), serving digital-era mutual learning, yet he was denied self-defense (courtroom “silencing”), his indictment letter rejected, and selective enforcement created a “chilling effect” (state media reposts unpunished), betraying policy (civilizational mutual learning). This undermines social engineering: law fails to adjust interest conflicts, exacerbating social tension. Sociological jurisprudence indicts: this rigidifies tools, ignoring digital social context, forfeiting welfare.

5. 利益分类失衡：荒谬警示与社会危机
   庞德的利益分类求整体最大化。 陈京元Bio自嘲“作案工具”，帖文存网无人关注，却判20月，荒谬如庞德比喻“法律无社会响应，即无生命”——个人利益（表达）被公共利益（秩序）碾压，制造危机。 这警示：失衡法律，永固社会不公。

6. Imbalanced Interest Categorization: Absurd Warning and Social Crisis
   Pound’s interest categorization seeks overall maximization. Dr. Chen’s bio mocks his account as a “tool of crime,” with posts lingering online unheeded, yet earning 20 months—absurd like Pound’s metaphor of “law without social response has no life”: individual interests (expression) crushed by public (order), breeding crisis. This warns: imbalanced law entrenches social injustice.

三、结语：重振社会工程，推动福祉新生

III. Conclusion: Reviving Social Engineering for Welfare’s Rebirth

社会法学派视本案为悲剧：利益失衡阻工程，语境忽略失政策，永固不公危机。陈京元自辩如庞德社会呼吁，重审恢复利益平衡，方能让法律在福祉中新生。 如庞德所言：“法律之任务，即社会工程。”唯有以此衡，方避“形式”成“公敌”，推动人文社会。

Sociological jurisprudence sees this case as tragedy: imbalanced interests block engineering, contextual neglect loses policy, entrenching injustice’s crisis. Dr. Chen’s defense echoes Pound’s social call, urging retrial to restore interest balancing, allowing law to rebirth in welfare. As Pound stated: “The task of law is social engineering.” Only thus can we avert “formalism” as “public enemy,” advancing humanistic society.