作为一种犯罪类型，聚众犯罪具有特殊性。一方面，其所造成的客观危害后果往往特别严重；另一方面，其产生大多具有深刻的社会原因，其发展过程也常常受一种特殊心理机制的支配，在国外，聚众犯罪往往被形象的称为“爆炸犯”、“沸腾犯”。在我国刑法理论中，聚众犯罪仍属于较为偏僻的研究领域。尽管理论上也存在为数不少的相关研究成果，但大多局限于个罪的研究，而作为一种犯罪类型，聚众犯罪在一些基本问题上缺乏系统的理论支撑。目前中国社会正处于转型时期，社会矛盾突出，群体性事件高发。在构建和谐社会的理念下，如何克服刑法对群体性事件的非理性干预，如何使刑法在其秩序维持与人权保障两大机能之间取得平衡，就成为聚众犯罪理论研究的核心问题。由此，在群体性事件背景下，就聚众犯罪的概念、构成特征及其刑事责任等基本理论问题进行系统深入研究，不仅具有重大的理论价值，更具有深刻的现实意义。论文的主要内容分为四个部分：第一部分主要是从事实层面对聚众、聚众行为进行分析，并在此基础上筛选出刑法所能规范的事实类型。聚众作为多人的聚集形式，可区分为群体与集群两种样态。集群虽与群体存在较大的差异，但作为具有暴力、胁迫倾向的行动集群，却具有与群体相类似的集体行动力。而聚众行为作为一种集体行动，在社会学意义上，则主要是指具有集体暴力、胁迫性质的集群行为，且其产生及发展过程往往存在特定的社会因素和特殊的心理机制。尽管聚众行为往往对社会秩序产生较大的危害，但其在规范属性上又时常与私力救济、集会自由存在密切关联，因此，对于聚众行为的刑法控制，必须考虑比例原则。具体而言，只有当聚众行为具有集体暴力、胁迫性质或者聚众形成行动集群且拒不解散时，刑法才有必要通过犯罪化的方式进行干预。第二部分主要是以刑法所能规范的事实类型为基础，结合刑法的具体规定，就聚众犯罪的概念、范围及分类等基本问题进行理论上的探讨。结合聚众行为的事实特征，聚众犯罪在规范意义上可以定义为：刑法规定的、由聚集在一起的不特定多数人所共同实施的、具有集体暴力或胁迫性质的犯罪。对于聚众犯罪的范围，即刑法规定的哪些具体犯罪属于聚众犯罪的类型，应依照形式与实质相结合的标准进行判断。具体而言，除了刑法第289条规定的聚众“打砸抢”行为外，共有14个罪名属于聚众犯罪的范畴。对于聚众犯罪的分类，除了依照刑法对聚众犯罪处罚规定的不同，将其区分为单一处罚结构的聚众犯罪与复合处罚结构的聚众犯罪外，还可以根据聚众行为在暴力、胁迫程度上的差异，将其区分为非法聚集类、骚乱类及暴乱类三种类型，以便于在罪名体系化的基础上对聚众犯罪进行整体把握。第三部分主要是在聚众犯罪概念的基础上，就其犯罪构成上的一般特征进行研究。尽管我国刑法对于聚众犯罪的规定较为分散，但聚众犯罪的本质特征决定了其所侵害的应是一种社会法益，即社会公共生活安定与宁静的状态。聚众犯罪的实行行为具有整体性，是由不特定多人聚集形成的集群所实施的共同行为即聚众行为。这种聚众行为具有集体暴力、胁迫的性质，但并不要求每个参与人都实施暴力、胁迫行为。在行为形态上，聚众行为包括组织、策划、指挥行为；直接实施暴力、胁迫的行为及在场助势等的行为样态。聚众犯罪的主体具有二重性，其实际主体是聚集之众这一整体，而其现实主体则是具体的聚众参与人，包括首要分子、下手实施者、在场助势者等犯罪人参与类型。聚众行为的整体性及其行为主体的二重性也决定了聚众犯罪在主观方面的层次性。一方面，要求犯罪参与人对于集群的暴力、胁迫倾向存在支持性的共感意识；另一方面，在这种共感意识的支配之下，各犯罪参与人之间对其各自的参与行为存在平行的故意。第四章则是关于聚众犯罪刑事责任问题的探讨。在关于聚众犯罪的理论研究中，存在必要共犯与必要共同犯罪两个概念，但必要共同犯罪与必要共犯在概念上并不等同，聚众犯罪也并非共同犯罪。为避免聚众犯罪刑事责任研究问题上的理论适用偏差，同时也使聚众犯罪在犯罪性质上获得统一的理论定位，笔者在借鉴德日刑法理论中必要共犯概念的基础上，确立了多主体犯的概念。作为一种刑法分则规定的多主体犯，尽管聚众犯罪的实际行为主体是一种行动集群，但这种集群并不具有类似于单位的物理实在性，因此，聚众犯罪刑事责任的解决无法适用单位犯罪的法理。在刑事责任的分担上，尽管聚众犯罪与共同犯罪具有很大的相似性，但两者的内在法理却有所不同。此外，从聚众犯罪所造成的严重客观危害来看，应加重犯罪参与人的刑事责任，但从引发聚众犯罪的社会原因及其受集群心理的影响程度来分析，犯罪参与人的刑事责任又有从轻的一面。在强调“尊重和保障人权”的宪法理念下，对于聚众犯罪参与人的刑罚量定，应注重对其从轻处罚的因素。即使是在聚众犯罪的转化犯情形中，也必须考虑其应从轻的一面，而不能片面地一味强调从重处罚。

ABSTRACTAs one kind of criminal type，crowd crime has its particularity. On the one hand, consequences of objective harm caused is particularly serious; on the other hand, it results from a deep social causes and its development process is dominated by special psychological mechanism; therefore, in foreign countries，crowd crime is often vividly known as the “explosive offense” , “boiling crime”. In our criminal law theory, the crowd crime is still a relatively remote area of research. In theory there are a few related researches of great significance, but most are confined to study of a crime; and as one kind of crime, crowd crime lacks of systematic theory in some of the basic issues. The current Chinese society is in the period of transition with highlighting social contradictions and high mass incidents. Under the concept of a harmonious society, how to prevent groups incidents from irrational intervention, and how to make criminal law strike a balance between the two maintain function of maintaining social order and protecting human rights are the core issue of the theory of the crowd crime. Thus, in the context of group events, carrying out a systematic and intensive study of the basic theories of the crowd crime, such as its concept, compositional characters and criminal responsibility, is not only of great theoretical value, but also of profound practical significance.The main content of dissertation is divided into four parts:The first part mainly analyses the crowd and crowd behavior from the view of the fact, and selects the types of fact regulated by criminal law. Crowd as a form of gathered people can be divided as group and crowd. The crowd as a temporary group has different characteristics with group, but the crowd with violence, coercion-related behavior has a similar mobility with group. From the sense of sociological, the crowd behavior as a common act, mainly refers to the collective behavior with the nature of collective violence and coercion, and its occurrence is often the presence of specific social factors and specific psychological mechanisms. Although the crowd behavior shall do great harm to society, it is often associated with private relief and freedom of assembly. So we must consider the principle of proportionate when it is regulated as crime by criminal law. Concretely speaking, only when the collective behavior with crowd violence and coercion or crowd with the crowd action and refusing to dissolute, it can be punished. The second part mainly studies the basic theoretical issues, such as the concept, scope and classification of crowd crime based on the types of fact regulated by criminal law and combined with the specific provisions of the Criminal Code. On the concept of crowd crime, it is defined as a crime with violence and coercion jointly committed by non-specific common people gathered together. On the scope of crowd crime, which crime is crowd crime under the Criminal Code is judged from the combined standards of form and substance. In addition to the “vandalism” behavior regulated by Article 289 of the Criminal Code, there are 14 crime belonging to the crowd crime. On the classification of crowd crimes, they can be divided into a single punishment structure and compound punishment structure according to the difference under criminal law provisions on the punishment of crowd crime. According to the degree of violence and coercion, crowd crimes can also be divided into three categories of illegal crowd, rioting and violence to get an overall grasp of the crowd crimes based on the systematic criminal charges.The third part studies the general characteristics of the conduct of crowd crime based on the concept of crowd crime. Although crowd crimes are dispersedly regulated in Criminal Law provisions, determined by the essential characteristics of crowd crime it should be violation of the legal interests of society, namely, the quiet state of social stability and public life. the behavior of crowd crimes has its integrity， namely， an action jointly committed by non-specific common people gathered together. Such action has the nature of collective violence and coercion， but does not require all of the participated people commit the violent and menace action. In behavior patterns, the crowd behavior includes the conduct of organization, planning， and commanding , act of direct violence and menace and the behavior in such kind of state that is potential to help. The subject of crowd crime has a duality, i.e. the actual subject is the whole of the crowd people, and its real subject is the specific people involved in crowd, including ringleaders, perpetrators and people presented ready to help. Both the integrity of crowd behavior and the duality of the subject of crowd crime determine subjective aspects of crowd crime to have several levels. On the one hand, it requires that participants tend to have a common sense of support towards a crowd crime of violence or coercion; on the other hand, under the common sense, participants have a parallel intention between each other.Chapter IV mainly studies the issue of criminal responsibility for crowd crime. In the theory research on crowd crime, there is a common concept of joint offense in theory, but the crowd crime is not a joint offense. In order to avoid the wrong application of crowd criminal theory on the issue of criminal responsibility for crowd crime and also get a unified theory of localization crowd crime in the crowd crime, therefore based on the concept the necessary accomplices from German and Japanese criminal law theory, we put out establishing the concept of multi-subject criminal. The solution of criminal responsibility for crowd crime can not apply with Legal Logos of units crimes. Although there is a similar criminal responsibility-sharing between joint offense and crowd crime, the Legal Logos is different. In addition, in spite of the view of serious objective harm done by crowd crimes, the criminal responsibility of participants should be increased. But from the social causes and its psychological impact of crowd crime, the criminal responsibility of participants should be lightened. Even in the transformed cases of crowd crime，we should also appropriately consider the lighter side, not to emphasis severe punishment blindly in one-sided way.