Autumn and Winter Check-in Challenge
From ancient times to the present, whether in China's legal tradition or in the classical criminal law period of the West, there has been an in-depth understanding and handling of negligent crimes. The core of negligence crimes is that the perpetrator did not intentionally cause harmful results, but due to his negligence or overconfidence, the adverse consequences occurred. Based on historical and theoretical perspectives, this article aims to determine the crime of negligence in actual criminal law practice.
Since the Western Zhou Dynasty, China has begun to distinguish between intentional and negligent crimes. In the classical criminal law period of the West, the theories of Feuerbach and others further deepened the understanding of negligence crimes, emphasizing the perpetrator's ability to foresee the harmful social consequences that his actions may cause. It has gradually developed and is widely used in the criminal law systems of various countries in the world, and China has also borrowed the basic principles of this theory. Article 15 of the Criminal Law stipulates that a person who should foresee that his or her actions might have a result that is harmful to society, and if he fails to foresee it because of negligence, or if he has foreseen it and is credulous enough to believe that it can be avoided, so that such a result occurs, it is a crime of negligence.
In determining the crime of negligence, it is necessary to distinguish between "negligent negligence" and "overconfident negligence". Negligent negligence is manifested in the fact that the actor did not foresee the harmful result that his or her act might cause, whereas overconfident negligence is the actor who foresaw the possible harmful result but mistakenly believed that it could have been avoided. For example, if an experienced driver negligently fails to notice certain risk factors while driving, resulting in an accident, this is negligent negligence. On the other hand, if a driver knows that there is a problem with the brakes, but because he is overconfident that there will be no accident, his behavior can be classified as overconfident negligence.
When analysing crimes of negligence, it is often necessary to consider whether the perpetrator has breached the duty of care. This includes judging whether the perpetrator has taken adequate precautions in a particular situation and whether there is sufficient awareness to foresee and avoid possible harm. There is a balance of subjective and objective criteria here. In some cases, even if the perpetrator did not actually foresee the harmful outcome, if an ordinary person could have foreseen the outcome in the same circumstances, the perpetrator may be found to be negligent for failing to meet this objective standard.
It is also necessary to consider whether the perpetrator has the obligation and ability to foresee the harmful outcome. This includes analysing the actor's age, occupation, technical proficiency, social experience and intellectual development. These factors affect whether the perpetrator could reasonably foresee the possible consequences of his or her conduct. For example, a professional construction worker should have a higher level of safety awareness and foresight than the average person when operating hazardous machinery. If the accident occurred due to negligence, the nature of the fault may be found to be more serious.
The determination of a crime of negligence also needs to consider the relationship between the consequences of the act and the psychological state of the perpetrator. Even if the perpetrator did not foresee the specific harmful result, if his or her conduct clearly violated the duty of care of ordinary people and led to serious consequences, this can also be found to be a crime of negligence. For example, if a person uses a mobile phone while driving distractedly, even though he did not anticipate an accident, this behavior clearly violates the basic duty of care while driving and is likely to be found guilty of negligence if it results in a serious car accident.
With regard to the unlawful will in the crime of negligence, it is the psychological motive of negligent behavior. Human actions are usually conscious, purposeful, and governed by the subjective will. This will determines not only the nature of the action, but also the mode of its activity. For example, the subjective will behind the intentional infringement of the personal rights of others is clear. Although nefarious acts do not explicitly pursue the criminal result, they often have other unlawful purposes behind them. The problem is that the result of the negligent act goes beyond the subjective intention of the perpetrator and causes serious harm to society.
The determination of a crime of negligence needs to comprehensively consider the subjective psychological state of the perpetrator, the consequences that may result from his conduct, the actor's duty of care, and the specific circumstances of the conduct. In actual legal practice, there is often a trade-off between multiple factors to ensure fair and accurate legal judgments. Through such a process, the determination of negligence crimes not only protects the public interest of society, but also can better balance the justice and efficiency of the law, and ensure that citizens' rights and obligations are properly respected and protected.