Font Size: a A A

On Criminal Negligence In Japan

Posted on:2010-09-08Degree:DoctorType:Dissertation
Country:ChinaCandidate:X M HanFull Text:PDF
GTID:1116360272498588Subject:Criminal Law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
With the rapid increase of crime of negligence and its serious damage, criminal negligence is becoming one of the focuses in theoretic studies on criminal law. While on the other hand, theories of criminal law from Germany and Japan have been models for our theories of criminal law. Japan can boast of its rich achievements in the theory of criminal negligence, which is indispensable for the development of theory of criminal negligence in China.After the Second World War, the number of negligent offences increased rapidly, esp. in fields like transportation, public pollution, etc., which has caught intense public attention. Parallel to the state of affairs of negligent offences, Japan's theory on criminal negligence has undergone great development, and gradually become the field of most heated discussions in criminal law studies in the 20th century. The neo-theory of negligence, following the old theory of negligence, is again followed by the new neo-theory of negligence. At the present state of development, the neo-theory of negligence is the most popular one. The three types of theories of negligence are involved in heated discussions with as their core the possibility of predictability and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The Morinaga milk scandal and the subsequent discussion bring the theory of criminal negligence into further depth, and together with it are the position of negligent offence in crimes in general, the theory of permissible danger, the principle of good faith, the negligence of supervision, etc. The theory of criminal negligence in Japan accords to the social development and reveals the restriction and enlargement of the range of penalty concerning negligent offences. Furthermore, Japan's theory of criminal negligence is heavily influenced by teleological behavioral science and the core of criminal negligence shifts from the duty of prediction of consequences to the duty of avoidance of consequences, and from the insignificance of consequences to that of behaviors concerning the punishability of criminal negligence. In addition, the theory of objective allocation of responsibility from Germany also has some bearing on the theory of criminal negligence in Japan. On the other hand, as an oppositional theory, the former does not pose substantial threat against the latter.Concerning the ontology of criminal negligence, there are four aspects, namely, the concept and type of criminal negligence, the basic assertions of the three major conception of negligence, the question of possibility of prediction and the duty of the avoidance of consequences as the core of negligence theory, and the theoretic significance of the doctrine of the sense of jeopardy.First, the concept of criminal negligence does not appear in Japan's criminal law and the interpretation of the theory of criminal negligence is performed by doctrines and judicial precedents. Many Japanese scholars propose their own concepts of criminal negligence, which can be roughly classified into the old theory of negligence, the neo-theory of negligence and the new neo-theory of negligence. The concept of criminal negligence is further exacted and revised with the advancement of relevant studies, which makes it possible for the revision and integration of the three types of theory of criminal negligence. The typology of criminal negligence is rich and abundant, and it can be subdivided into conscious and unconscious negligence, operational and ordinary negligence, grave and common negligence, negligence of supervision, negligence of management, etc. Second, the basic assertion of the three theories of negligence is as follows: the old theory of negligence centers around the duty of the prediction of consequences to define criminal negligence. It requires concrete objects of prediction and consequence is its indispensable part. And the possibility of prediction is also required. The neo-theory of negligence centers around the duty of the avoidance of consequences. It defines criminal negligence from the two aspects of the duty of the prediction of consequences and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The new neo-theory of negligence centers around the duty of the avoidance of consequences. It holds that the existence of jeopardy that cannot be disregarded connotes the possibility of prediction and enables the confirmation of the negligence. In other words, it replaces the concrete possibility of prediction in the old and neo-theory of negligence with the sense jeopardy that cannot be disregarded. Third, as to the possibility of prediction, its standard is always a target of debate. As to the standard of the possibility of prediction, the criminal law circle in Japan recognizes three doctrines, the subjective doctrine, the objective doctrine, and the compromise between the two. The objective doctrine is generally adopted in Japanese courts while the theoretic majority is the compromised standard. As to the object and degree of the possibility of prediction, it is commonly held by Japanese scholars that the object of the possibility of prediction consists of the consequences derived from the behavior of criminal negligence and the causal relationship between the two. The degree of the possibility of prediction must be concrete, i.e. it must be possible for people to predict the consequences and the basic part of the causal relation. As to the duty of the avoidance of consequences, many scholars emphasize the order of the cognizance of criminal negligence. The fact that the cognizance of negligence stems from the possibility of prediction or from consequences has bearing on the confirmation of the duty of avoidance as well as on the function of the duty of avoidance of consequences in the confirmation of criminal negligence. Besides, the confirmation of the content of the duty of the avoidance of consequences is related to the technological development and jeopardy that goes with it. Finally, the case of the Morinaga milk scandal is the only one that adopted the sense of jeopardy which makes it theoretically significant. The duty of the avoidance of consequences is the logical starting point of the duty of care. The concrete possibility of prediction is replaced by the sense of jeopardy to improve the duty of the avoidance of consequences and to further reflect on the possibility of prediction, the sense of jeopardy and the principle of good faith. However, after this case, there is a dangerous trend to negate blindly the concrete possibility of prediction and to abuse the new neo-theory of negligence. This trend is timely criticized and corrected.All in all, the old theory of negligence, the neo-theory of negligence and the new neo-theory of negligence are all centered around the duo cores of the possibility of prediction and the duty of the avoidance of consequences. As a result, the concrete possibility of prediction can no longer be fully and completely implemented and is replaced by possibility of prediction of the consequences as constitutive requirements and the basic causal relation. As to the order of the cognizance of negligence, the conception that it should start from the possibility of prediction is discarded and it now starts with consequences, then the duty of the avoidance of consequences is exacted and still then the possibility of prediction can be discussed, hence the core position of the duty of the avoidance of consequences in criminal negligence. The sense of jeopardy should not be understood as abstract as well, and rather, it should be sense of jeopardy based on reality. Its existence can be used as proof of the prediction of consequences.The significance of criminal negligence in the theories of crime is a target of heated debates. The old theory of negligence regard negligence simply as the element of responsibility. The neo-theory of negligence regards negligence also as element of constitutive requirements. The significance of criminal negligence is not only related to the theory of negligence, but also to the theory of crime. The significance of criminal negligence in Japan is closely related to the development of the theory of crime and is forever changing. At present, because of the fact that constitutive requirements are seen as law-specified crime, criminal negligence has as its core the duty of the avoidance of consequences and it is necessarily the constitutive requirement. The change of the position of criminal negligence connotes the possible negation of the theory of responsibility and the alienation of the syllogism of crime. Concerning the responsibility of criminal negligence in Japan, it includes the nature of criminal negligence, its principle, the theory of permissible danger, and the theory of good faith. First, the nature of the responsibility of criminal negligence is focused by the doctrine of moral obligation, the doctrine of social responsibility, the doctrine of psychological responsibility, the doctrine of regulatory responsibility, etc. At the present stage of development, most Japanese scholars support the doctrine of regulatory responsibility. While the doctrine of moral obligation also has its rationality, i.e. its emphasis on the connection between moral obligation and legal responsibility. Second, Japanese criminal law has as its principle the confirmation of the criminal responsibility of the intentional criminals. However, the actual range of penalty of the intentional criminal is not clear and in practice it is often wider than is laid down in criminal law. Third, the theory of permissible danger is one of the theories about the exempt of the responsibility of criminal negligence. This theory can limit the functioning of the responsibility of criminal negligence. It holds that there are many hazardous deeds in modern society and they should not be fully prohibited for the sake of social development. Rather, they should be tolerated. There are many doctrines concerning the theory of permissible jeopardy, for example, the doctrine of the blocking of the constitutive requirements, the doctrine of the blocking of the illegality, the doctrine of negligent responsibility, etc. The major objects of the application of permissible jeopardy consist of the driving of high speed vehicles, the deeds of risky mining, the protection of human life and health (doctors'operations, emergency rescue), scientific experiments, sports rescue, etc. The range of application of permissible jeopardy should be limited and this comprises general limitation and concrete limitation. Finally, the principle of good faith based on the theory of permissible jeopardy can also limit criminal negligence. There are wide and narrow definitions of the principle of good faith. The wide definition of the principle of good faith applies to the general suspects of negligence, esp. to those whose behavior is relevant to the consequences. The narrow definition of the principle of good faith can only be applied to traffic accidents. The old theory of negligence holds that the possibility of prediction can be further divided into actual possibility of prediction and possibility of prediction that is under the duty of care in criminal law. When the possibility of prediction actually exists, the principle of good faith is the criteria for the judgment of the imposition of the duty of care of the criminal law. the neo-theory of negligence use the principle of good faith as the criteria for the judgment of the duty of the avoidance of consequences. The application of the principle of good faith is limited by many conditions, mainly in terms of range of application, objects of application, typical accidents of application, and special occasion that does not admit the application of this principle.The criminal negligence in Japan is significant for China. We now face a dilemma between the rapid increase of negligent offenses and the backwardness of our theory of criminal negligence. We are now entering into a modern society and we are gradually facing crimes concerning high-speed traffic, environmental pollution, food safety, production safety, etc., while on the other hand our basic theory of criminal negligence falls far behind. As a result, our knowledge of the ability to care, the structure of criminal negligence is far from enough. Our learning of Japan's criminal negligence is not only necessary but also possible. Our constitutive requirement of crime is similar to that of Japan and our theory of crime share some substantial similarity with that of Japan, though they are different in term of structure. Therefore, against the backdrop of our entering into a modern society, we should first of all learn from the basic assertions of the neo-theory of negligence and use the new neo-theory of negligence as a complement. Second, we should gradually refer to the principle of good faith and its range of application and conditions of limitation. On the other hand, our issues of food safety, environmental pollution and production safety from enterprises and factories increasingly catch people's attention. This contrasts sharply with our absence of the theory of negligence of supervision. Our knowledge of the negligence of supervision is far from clear and supervisors often escape from their responsibility of the negligence of supervision. This indulgence in law and the increase in accident-oriented negligent offences cannot be balanced in reality. As a result, we should also learn from Japan's theory of negligence of supervision to strengthen the validation of the negligence of supervision by supervisors.
Keywords/Search Tags:the old theory of negligence, the neo-theory of negligence, the new neo-theory of negligence, the possibility of prediction, the duty of the avoidance of consequences, the sense of jeopardy, the principle of good faith, the negligence of supervision
PDF Full Text Request
Related items