How to solve the abuse of the predecessor?

I recently received a legal consultation on an emotional dispute. The woman called her husband "love rat". After breaking up, she abused her many times through WeChat and SMS, asking me what she should do.

As a legal person, the legal thinking in my mind immediately pops up two legal solutions.

First of all, insulting others violates the provisions of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment. The woman can call the police and request administrative punishment for those who insult her. The legal basis is the second and fifth paragraphs of Article 42 of the Law on Public Security Administration Punishment, and (2) publicly insulting others or fabricating facts to slander others;

(5) sending obscene, insulting, intimidating or other information for many times to interfere with the normal life of others;

Regarding insulting others, the difference between the two paragraphs is that the second paragraph stipulates public insults, that is, insults in public places (including reality and the Internet). The fifth paragraph stipulates "sending abusive information many times", emphasizing many times.

However, the third solution is to find someone to teach the man privately, saying that the man is narrow-minded, and after the police or prosecution, the man may intensify his revenge on the woman, so he remembered this "private relief" method.

This idea of the client reminds me. After careful consideration, I think private relief is the best solution to this matter to a great extent. The reason for this is the following：

First of all. The function of law is essentially to provide citizens with an expectation of social operation rules, which means that people can predict the possible legal consequences when solving disputes through legal channels.

Finally, the social reality is that the alarm handling may not be filed, because the evidence may be insufficient or not serious enough. It takes a long time to prosecute, and how to prove it is also a problem.

Private relief is different. As far as this case is concerned, it is better for the woman to solve the problem through legal channels by "finding someone to teach the man a lesson". On the one hand, it is unknown who to look for. It may be a scholar, a martial man, a white road or a gangster. On the other hand, we don't know the means of teaching. What about beatings? Scold? To what extent? Everything is unpredictable.

? On this basis, from the man's point of view, of course, what is even more terrible is the completely unknowable private relief. Just like people are afraid of the dark, people will be afraid if they can't perceive the things around them after dark.

One more thing can confirm the above analysis. I once took over a divorce dispute. The man cheated, and the man told me himself that he was not worried about the woman suing for divorce, but was afraid of her parents' trouble. In the same way, he doesn't know what will happen if the woman's parents make trouble.

From this, it is associated with the idea put forward by many parties in the previous negotiations. It takes a long time to go to court, and spending money may not have a good result. It is better to solve it privately (mainly referring to illegal channels). As a legal person, I am sincerely worried about the appearance and existence of this phenomenon. In the event of a dispute, the law-abiding people are at a disadvantage, the offenders evade legal sanctions through various channels, and the law-abiding people have to take illegal measures to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. There is nothing more ironic than this! In the long run, people no longer believe in the law and are unwilling to solve problems through legal channels, and the social expectations established by law will become useless. People don't know when and where they will be "taught" by controversial people who may have offended them. As a result, everyone is afraid of themselves and has no sense of security, and this society will regress to the dangerous era of primitive society. It's scary to think about it.

Of course, as a legal person with professional ethics, I still suggest that the parties take the first two legal channels to solve it.