Legal gas station
Criminal liability is different from civil liability, and both have their own independent legal norms. In the civil sphere, the victim may file a claim for compensation for material and moral damages for unlawful infringement. However, the premise for claiming compensation for moral damages in a civil action incidental to a criminal case is that criminal proceedings are ongoing and that the victim has actually suffered moral damage caused by the criminal act. Although civil litigation attached to criminal proceedings is dependent on criminal proceedings, this does not affect the relatively independent status of civil litigation attached to criminal proceedings. Therefore, although civil litigation attached to criminal cases is dependent, it is not completely "criminalized".
Moral damages are intangible and abstract, and are difficult to calculate and measure in money, so there are many difficult problems in judicial practice. The lack of a clear standard of compensation can easily lead to an excessively high amount of compensation for the victim, which does not match the ability of the perpetrator to compensate. The trial of moral damages will also increase the workload of the court and the efficiency of litigation. At the same time, China has not yet established a state compensation system for compensation for moral damages to victims. In developed countries, although moral damages are often not effectively compensated, these countries have established sophisticated social security systems and relief systems that allow them to bear partial or full liability. In contrast, our country still has a long way to go in terms of access to justice.
There are two main viewpoints in the theoretical circles as to whether or not moral damages can be claimed in civil litigation attached to criminal cases, in a broad sense and in a narrow sense, and the focus of the dispute between the two is whether or not to include compensation for moral damages. The broad view is that it is necessary to resolve not only the criminal responsibility of the offender, but also all civil disputes arising from criminal acts; In contrast, the narrow view is that only the victim's claim for compensation for material damage is resolved. Since the moral injury caused by a crime is more egregious than that of an ordinary tort, since the court usually supports a claim for moral damages for a tort, it is all the more necessary to support a claim for moral damages caused by a crime, so as to conform to the principle of giving priority to the severity and protecting the rights of the victim. However, China's criminal justice has adopted a narrow view, that is, it strictly restricts the victim's claim for moral damages, and even deprives the victim of the right to file a separate lawsuit.
Why does China adopt such a strict attitude towards compensation for moral damages to the attached people? The SPC has given the answer. In attached civil litigation cases, the imposition of a criminal penalty already means that the defendant has borne the adverse consequences of his criminal acts, which can play a role in making up for the victim's mental losses. Requiring the defendant to bear compensation for moral damages may lead to a low willingness to pay compensation and the suspicion of repeated punishment. The financial situation of the majority of criminal offenders is not good, and in some cases material damages are required. If the defendant is further required to compensate the victim for moral damages, it may exceed his economic scope and make it impossible to achieve the legislative purpose. In particular, criminal defendants often belong to peasants with poor economic conditions or migrant workers in urban areas, and it is difficult for them to afford compensation for moral damages, and it is easy for them to turn compensation for moral damages into empty checks, which on the contrary increases the victims' dissatisfaction and triggers social contradictions.
In judicial practice, although in some types of cases, such as traffic accidents, minors and dangerous driving cases, claims for moral damages have been supported to varying degrees, on the whole, compared with many criminal cases, the types of cases that have been supported are rare. In the case of intentional injury, for example, despite the relatively high number of documents, the court did not support the claim for moral damages in any of the cases. Based on the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Judicial Interpretation of the New Criminal Procedure Law, the people's court will generally not accept an attached civil lawsuit or a separate civil lawsuit for compensation for moral losses due to a criminal violation. The understanding of "general" circumstances is different, and the "exceptional" circumstances are not discretionary, resulting in fewer cases supporting moral damages.
As far as the issue of compensation for moral damages in attached civil litigation is concerned, since the promulgation of China's Criminal Procedure Law in 1979, the mainstream view has long held an attitude of not supporting or even prohibiting it. Although the new interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law has made certain changes in this regard, stipulating that "general inadmissibility" has not changed significantly. Coupled with the long-established judicial practice, the trial judge will often choose between "support" and "non-support" in order to avoid bearing judicial responsibility. Since 2016, courts across the country have implemented judicial accountability reforms, including accountability for wrongful convictions. The system imposes lifelong responsibility on judges for the quality of their cases within the scope of their duties, as a reminder to judges to exercise caution and perform their duties actively. However, in reality, judges are afraid to be flexible because they are afraid of taking responsibility.
In this context, the judge already had his own answer in his heart, that is, he did not support moral damages in attached civil litigation. Regardless of which legal basis the judge chooses, the final judgment will often not support moral damages and will not give rise to a dispute over the judgment. In judicial practice, some judges arbitrarily choose the applicable legal provisions, ignore the laws and judicial interpretations in the field of criminal procedure, and even cite the relevant provisions in the civil field. Due to the lack of clarity in China's legislative provisions on the system of compensation for moral damages in attached civil litigation, some judges do not have a deep understanding of this issue, and it is difficult to accurately apply the law when hearing cases, which aggravates the confusion of the legal basis cited in support of the judgment in judicial application.
China has established a corresponding compensation system for moral damages in the civil field, and although there is still room for improvement, this is already a big step forward, so that many infringed persons who have suffered moral damage have been protected by law. However, victims who have suffered moral damage in criminal proceedings do not have access to legal support. In view of the deficiencies in the system of compensation for moral damages discovered in trial practice and the conflict with other laws, it is necessary to incorporate the system of compensation for moral damages into civil litigation attached to criminal cases. At the same time, in the exploration of expanding support for moral damages, it is also necessary to pay attention to guarding against the risks that may be brought about by the abuse of moral damages.