高秦伟

• 1:中央财经大学法学院 北京100081

摘要(Abstract)：

自取消收容遣送制度的几年来,中国各城市居无定所的乞讨流浪、偷盗抢劫等流窜犯罪者数量呈上升趋势,所导致的民事纠纷、违法犯罪等不稳定因素亦随之骤增,给当地市容、秩序和治安管理构成很大压力。政府应该如何予以规制,如何在公共秩序与个人自由之间实现衡平,成为摆在我们面前的重要课题,本文以美国的经验为例,希望能够为中国政府的政策形成、法院逻辑推理提供参考。

关键词(KeyWords)： 乞讨权;政府规制;公共秩序;个人自由

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 高秦伟

参考文献(References)：

• [1]Helen Hershkoff and Adam S.Cohen,Begging toDiffer:The FirstAmendmentand the Rightto Beg,104 Harv.L.Rev.896(1990-1991).
• [2]Nancy A.Millich,Compassion Fatigue and theFirst Amendment:Are the Homeless ConstitutionalCastaways?,27 U.C.Davis L.Rev.255,257(1993-1994).
• [3]See Cohens v.Virginia,19 U.S.264,276-89(1821).
• [4]See Scott D.Sitner,Beggar’s Banquet:The FirstAmendment Right to Beg,1991 Det.C.L.Rev.795(1991).
• [5]See Robert Teir,Maintaining Safety and Civility inPublic Spaces:A Constitutional Approach to Ag-gressive Begging,54 La.L.Rev.285,292(1993-1994).
• [6]See Ala.Code§13 A-ii-9(a)(i)(1982);Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann.§13-2905(A)(3)(1989);Colo.Rev.Stat.§18-9-112(2)(a)(1986);Del.Code Ann.tit ii,§1321(4)(1987).
• [7]See La.Rev.Stat.Ann.§14:107(3)(West1986);Miss.Code Ann.§97-35-37(g)(1972).
• [8]See Kan.Stat.Ann.§21-41-8(e)(1988);Mass.Gen.L.ch.272,§§63-64(1988);Mich.Comp.Laws Ann.§750.167(West1968);Minn.Stat.Ann.§609-725(4)(West1987);Vt.Stat.Ann.tit.13,§3901(1974);Wis.Stat.Ann.§947.02(4)(West1982).
• [9]See Young v.New York City Transit Auth.,729F.Supp.341,354 n.23(S.D.N.Y.)(collectingstatutes),rev’d and vacated,903 F.2d 146(2dCir.),cert.denied,111 S.Ct.516(1990).See,e.g.,Memphis,Tenn.,Code§22-12(1986);Portland,Or.,City Code§14.24.040(1984).
• [10]See City of Seattle v.Webster,802 P.2d 1333(Wash.1990);Ulmer v.Municipal Court for Oak-land-Piedmont Judicial Dist.,127 Cal.Rptr.445(Cal.Ct.App.1976);State ex.rel.Williams v.City Court of Tuscon,520 P.2d 1116(Ariz.Ct.App.1974).Constitutional protection was found toextend to begging in C.C.B.v.Florida,458 So.2d47(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984).
• [11]Roulette v.City of Seattle,850 F.Supp.1442(W.D.Wash.1994).
• [12]Blair v.Shanahan,775 F.Supp.1315(N.D.Cal.1991).
• [13]See Fay Leoussis,The New Constitutional Rightto Beg-Is Begging Really Protected Speech?,14St.Louis U.Pub.L.Rev.529,532(1994-1995).
• [14]See Grace L.Zur,Young v.NewYork City Tran-sit Authority:Silencing the Beggers in the Sub-ways,12 Pace L.Rev.359(1992).
• [15]See,e.g.,Ledford,652 So.2d at1254.
• [16]See Los Angeles Altiance for Survival v.City ofLos Angeles,157 F.3d 1162,1166(9th Cir.1998).
• [17]See Benefit v.City of Cambridge,679 N.E.2d184(Mass.1997).
• [18]Seattle,Wash.,Mun.Code Code§12A.12.015A(1)(1987).
• [19]See Brian C.Thomas,Examining a Beggar’sFirst Amendment Right to Beg in an Era of Anti-Begging Ordinances:The Presence and PersistenceTest,26 U.Dayton L.Rev.155,156(2000-2001).
• [20]See Los Angeles,Cal..Code 171664§41.59(1997).
• [21]See Young v.New York City Transit Auth.,903F.2d 146,151(2d Cir.1990).
• [22]N.Y.Penal Law§240.35(McKinney’s1999).
• [23]903 F.2d 146(2d Cir.1990).
• [24]See Loper v.New York Police Dep’t,802 F.Supp.1029,1032(S.D.N.Y.1992).
• [25]See International Soc’y for Krishna Conscious-ness v.Lee,505 U.S.672,677();United Statesv.Kokinda,497 U.S.720,725(1990);Riley v.Nat’l Fed.of Blind,487 U.S.781,788-89(1988);Schaumburg v.Citizens for a Better Envi-ronment,444 U.S.620,632(1980);Heffron v.International Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness,Inc.,452 U.S.640,647(1981).
• [26]See,e.g.Heffron v.International Soc’y forKrishna Consciousness,Inc.,452 U.S.640,645(1981).
• [27]Loper v.NewYork City Police Dep’t,999 F.2d699,702(2d Cir.1993)(quoting Young v.NewYork City Transit Auth.,903 F.2d 146,157(2dCir.1990)).
• [28]See Brian C.Thomas,Examining a Beggar’sFirst Amendment Right to Beg in an Era of Anti-Begging Ordinances:The Presence and PersistenceTest,26 U.Dayton L.Rev.155,156(2000-2001).
• [29]195 N.C.377,142 S.E.330(1928).
• [30]Id.at380-81,142 S.E.at332.
• [31]55 Cal.App.3d 263,127 Cal.Rptr.445(1976).
• [32]Cal.Penal Code§647(West1988).
• [33]Ulmer,55 Cal.App.3d at266,127 Cal.Rptr.At447.
• [34]458 So.2d 47(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984).
• [35]See Anthony J.Rose,The Beggar’s Free SpeechClaim,65 Ind.L.J.191(1989-1990).
• [36]See Robert Teir,Maintaining Safety and Civilityin Public Spaces:AConstitutional Approach to Ag-gressive Begging,54 La.L.Rev.285,305(1993-1994).
• [37]Cox v.Louisiana,379 U.S.536(1965).
• [38]See C.C.B.,458 So.2d at48.
• [39]22 Hen.8,ch.12(1530).See also Papachristouv.City of Jacksonville,405 U.S.156,161-62(1972).
• [40]306 F.Supp.613(D.Utah 1969)(mem.).
• [41]See,e.g.,People v.Fogelson,21 Cal.3d 158,577 P.2d 677,145 Cal.Rptr.542(1978).See al-so Hopkins,Panhandling Law is Vague,Judge A-grees,Seattle Post-Intelligencer,Nov.18,1988,atB1,col.2.
• [42]Kovacs v.Cooper,336 U.S.77,83(1949).
• [43]577 P.2d 677,678 n.1(1978)(quoting LosAngeles,Cal.,Mun.Code§42.14.1).
• [44]Young v.New York City Transit Auth.,903 F.2d 146,148(1990).
• [45]See Young,729 F.Supp.at351-56,359.
• [46]See Young,903 F.2d at148.
• [47]See id.at152-54.
• [48]999 F.2d 699,704-05(2d.Cir.1993)(strik-ing down N.Y.Penal Law§240.35(1)).
• [49]Loper v.New York City Police Dep’t.,802 F.Supp.1029,1033(S.D.N.Y.1992)[hereinafterLoper(district court opinion)].
• [50]N.Y.Penal Law§240.35(1)(McKinney1989).
• [51]See Loper(district court opinion),802 F.Supp.at1047-48.
• [52]See Loper,999 F.2d at701.
• [53]See Stephanie M.Kaufman,The Speech/ConductDistinction and First Amendment Protection ofBegging in Subways,79 Geo.L.J.1803(1990-1991).
• [54]See Murdock v.Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,319 U.S.105,111(1943).
• [55]See id.at625-26.
• [56]See People v.Schrader,617 N.Y.S.2d 429,435(N.Y.App.Div.1994).
• [57]See R.A.V.v.City of St.Paul,112 S.Ct.at2542,2567-68(1992);Simon&Schuster v.NewYork Crime Victims Bd.,112 S.Ct.501,509(1991).
• [58]Young v.New York City Transit Auth.,903 F.2d 146,158(1990)(quoting Ward v.Rock A-gainst Racism,491 U.S.781,791(1989)).
• [59]Id.at158-59.
• [60]Proposed amendment to the New York City Ad-ministrative Code,§10-136,Intro.No.132,Feb.1994.
• [61]Id.§10-162(a)(1)(i)-(v).
• [62]See Chaplinsky v.New Hampshire,315 U.S.568,572(1942).See also Clark v.Community forCreative Non-Violence,468 U.S.288,293(1984).
• [63]See Hague v.Committee for Indus.Org.,307 U.S.496,515(1939).See also United States v.Grace,461 U.S.171,177(1983).
• [64]See Perry Educ.Ass’n v.Perry Local Educa-tors’Ass’n,460 U.S.37,45(1983).
• [65]Loper v.New York City Police Dep’t,802 F.Supp.1029,1043(1992).
• [66]See Ledford v.Florida,652 So.2d 1254,1256(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995).
• [67]See Police Dep’t of Chicago v.Mosley,408 U.S.92,104(1972).
• ①See,e.g.Los Angeles,Cal.,Code 171664§41.59(b)(1997)(“任何人均不得在任何公共场所以攻击性的方式恳求捐赠或乞讨……”);St.Petersburg,Fla.,Code§20-79(b)(2000)(“任何人通过强制性的行为实施募捐即为非法”);N.Y.Penal Law§240.35(McKin-ney’s 1999)(“任何人在公共场所基于乞讨的目的逗留或闲逛即为有罪”)。与这些地方性的法规相同,一些州政府也颁布了禁止乞讨的法律。See e.g.,Hawaii Penal Code§711-1101(1)(e)(2000)(“任何人如果基于乞讨或恳求募捐的目的,阻止公共场所或对公众开放的场所的其他人……则系妨害治安的行为”)。See also Mass.Ann.Laws ch.272,§66(2000)(“任何人四处游走且乞讨……将被视为游民,也许还要受到惩罚……”);Michigan Penal Code§750.167(1)(H)(MCLA 1999)(“任何人如果被发现在公共场所乞讨……均被视为妨害治安的人”)。
• ①See City of Seattle v.Webster,802 P.2d 1333(Wash.1990),cert.denied,111 S.Ct.1690(1991).后来这一法律增加了禁止在公共人行道躺卧的规定。See Seattle,Wash.,Mun.Code§15.48.040.
• ①458 So.2d 47(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984).at 49(quoting Ulmer,55 Cal.App.3d at 266,127 Cal.Rptr.at 445(citing 2 Assem.J.Appendix(1961 Reg.Sess.)Assem.Interim Comm.Rep.(1959-1961)Crim.Proc.12-13)).加利福尼亚州的法律排除了那些因目盲或残疾而坐、站在路边乞讨的人,以及在圣诞节站在街头求乞善款的退伍伤残军人等。
• ①See Loper v.New York City Police Dep’t,802 F.Supp.1029,1037(S.D.N.Y.1992)(“乞讨就是‘要求施舍’”)。See also Benefit v.Cityof Cambridge,679 N.E.2d 184,187(Mass.1997)(指出和平的乞讨“包括了第一修正案保护的交流沟通行为”);Smith v.City of Fort Lauderdale,177 F.3d 954,956(11th Cir.1999)(“与其他的慈善募捐一样,乞讨是一种言论受到第一修正案的保护”)。
• ①See Chicago v.Morales,527 U.S.41,56(1999)(本法规没有告诉普通人如何去辨认哪些行为是受到禁止的,所以是违宪的)。