Criminal Law Analysis Of The Victim's Promis

The issues related to the victim’s commitment,whether from the perspective of criminal law theory or judicial practice,are highly controversial and difficult to resolve.Therefore,as researchers in criminal law,it is necessary to elucidate the various issues surrounding the victim’s commitment from the perspective of criminal law.In terms of the significance in criminal law,the victim should be defined as the bearer of legal interests,namely natural persons or entities whose legal interests are violated.The concept of the victim’s commitment can be summarized as the victim exercising control over their personal legal interests through free will,allowing and accepting justifiable reasons for others to harm their own rights.By tracing the origins of terminology distinctions between the opposing viewpoints of "dualism" and "monism," as well as from the perspectives of semantic usage,word origins and transmission,theoretical interpretations,and legal transplantation,"victim commitment" can be distinguished from "victim consent." The ethical foundation of the victim’s commitment includes the restraint of criminal law and the advocacy of liberalism;the legal foundation of the victim’s commitment should adopt the interest-balancing approach.The legal effects of the victim’s commitment can be distinguished into three scenarios: constituting elements barring exceptions,illegality barring exceptions,mitigating circumstances for penalties,constitutive elements,and no legal effects.The concept of the victim’s commitment capacity is defined as the right of the rights holder to consent to their legal interests;the victim’s commitment right is explicitly defined as belonging to the legitimate owner of legal interests and having the power to dispose of legal interests.The time requirement for the victim’s commitment exists in that the commitment needs to be made at the time of the act or before the occurrence of the result and must be consistent with the commitment at the time of the occurrence of the result;the concept of subsequent commitment refers to the actor failing to obtain consent or forgiveness from others after infringing upon the legal rights of the victim.From the perspective of the victim’s commitment,the principle of expressing intent and necessity is more reasonable.Excessive commitment is a determination made from the perspective of the actor on commitment issues,and this chapter belongs to the implementation of excessive behavior.The commitment of compound legal interests should be analyzed from the perspective of the victim,and the "realization theory of legal interests" can be used to determine the commitment of compound legal interests.The commitment issues in crimes without victims should not be overlooked.In accordance with social realities and conditions universally accepted by the people,when the victim exercises their right to self-determination,relinquishing part of their own rights,and such relinquishment directly affects themselves without directly harming other non-self legal interests,it should not be deemed a crime.The assessment of the effectiveness of deceived commitments should not depart from the victim’s own power of legal interest disposition,and the disposition of legal interests should be used as the intermediate term for the determination of the most important interest damage,with the decisive motive theory used to judge the premise of the disposition of legal interests;the judgment of the decisive motive should follow logical sequence,that is,the formation of motive is sufficient to affect the victim’s perception of the facts,thereby affecting the victim’s abandonment of legal interests.Presumed commitment is made when the victim lacks awareness and capacity for disposition,based on objective circumstances and the subjective will reflected in the victim’s past behavior,presuming that the victim allows the actor to engage in actions related to themselves,with the harm caused by the action being preferable to the harm caused by inaction.It should be affirmed as a type of "non-victim benefit" presumed commitment.The justification for presumed commitment mainly lies in judging whether subjective or objective theories should be adopted;subjective theories respect the victim’s right to self-determination and should be advocated.In judging the conditions for the establishment of presumed commitment,on the positive side,judgment can be made from four perspectives: object,objective aspect,subject,and subjective aspect,to judge interests,situations,relationships,and psychology.On the reverse limiting side,different limitations should be placed on property rights,personal rights,and sexual rights.In the case of emergency treatment in emergencies,objective judgment should be made,namely the eligibility of the doctor’s identity;the singularity of the treatment purpose;the eligibility of the treatment behavior.Subjective judgment on the legitimacy of emergency treatment should consider the satisfaction of the treatment results and the decision of close relatives.The "close relative’s signature consent" system is only a remedial measure when the patient’s self-determination is lacking and should not be confined to formalism or be too doctrinaire.