摘要： 立法者重视刑法介入家庭、阻断家庭虐待的必要性,故专门规定针对家庭成员的虐待罪。但顾此难免失彼。牟某翰案暴露出虐待罪虽经修补依然存在保护空白:妇女在家庭外受虐待,不适用该罪。司法实践通过扩大“家庭成员”范围来保护妇女在家庭外不受虐待,却有违罪刑法定。在司法偏离宪法的表层问题下,隐藏着立法偏离宪法的深层问题。一是纵向的保护不足,妇女走出家庭就失去虐待罪的适用。二是横向的保护不平等,家庭内妇女受保护,而家庭外妇女不受保护。保护家庭和保护妇女都是宪法规定的国家保护义务,二者常被误解为对立冲突关系,实为相互竞合关系。刑法应根据宪法,启动虐待罪名体系化,构建“一般保护加特殊保护”的梯次递进结构,方能兼顾家庭内外。

关键词: 虐待罪, 家庭成员, 国家保护义务, 平等原则, 基本权利竞合

Abstract: Legislators, emphasizing the necessity of criminal law intervening in families to prevent abuse, have specifically established the crime of abuse targeting “family members”.However, this approach inevitably overlooks abuse outside the family.The Mu Linhan case reveals loopholes in the protection by the crime of abuse.In judicial practice, the scope of “family members” has been expanded to protect women abused outside the family, which nonetheless violates the principle of legality.Beneath this issue lies the problem of legislative unconstitutionality, manifested in two aspects: insufficient protection and unequal protection.Both “protecting the family” and “protecting women” are state obligations stipulated in the Constitution.They are often mistakenly perceived as conflicting, but in essence, they constitute a concurrence of fundamental rights.Therefore, in accordance with the Constitution, criminal law should establish a progressive structure to cover both intra-family and extra-family abuse.

Key words: Abuse, Family Members, State Protection Obligations, Principle of Equality, Concurrence of Fundamental Rights