The Determination About The Crime Of Causing Traffic Accidents

For recent years, criminal cases caused by traffic accidents increased rapidly for the increasing of motor ownership with the development of social and ecnomic level year by year. Supreme people's court and Supreme people's procurator have made several interpretations for the crime.But in the practice,many problems of this crime are discussed.The objective aspect of the crime of causing traffic accidents includes four conditions. One is the act of violating regulations governing traffic and transportation whatever the criminal is aware of those regulations. It should be noted, there are two kinds of infringing on regulations of transporation, infringing on regulations about management can not lead to serious accident directly but infringing on regulations about safety must lead to unnormal travle.So the infringing on regulations about safety are the act infringing on regulations of transporation. The second condition is the serious accident resulting in serious injuries or deaths or heavy losses of public or private property. At the same time, the criminal who causes the accident should be equally responsible for the accident. The judicial interpretation manifests the principle of integrating subjectivity and objectivity because it dose not determine guilt purely by the result. The third condition is the causality in criminal law between the violation and the harmful consequences. The causality could be divided into single ,competing and intervention aspects. It should be noted that the difference between the cometing and intervention causality on the effects whithin duty. The forth condition is that the violation must occur in the transportation activity, which manifests the dangerous characteristic to public security. As far as the subject of crime is concerned, there are no special limits in the relative regulations. The subjective aspect mainly includes the actor's negligence in the harmful consequences. The object of the crime mainly manifests in infringement to the transportation security. The subjec of crime of causing traffic accidents includes transportation staff,non-transport staff,suspect's manages, the vehicle's owner or the vehicle's tenant.In the judicial practice, the responsibility recognized in the crime of causing traffic accidents frequently is regarded as the same as the authentication, and the judicial personnel does not give the corresponding examination, whose essence is a kind of administrative recognizing. The responsibility determination must be integrated to the judicial examination scope, and the wrong in the determination practices must be corrected. The processing about the wounded and the emergencies should become the most important factor in the determination of traffic crime, and should be considered in the confirmation of surrender. The applicable scope of surrenders should be expanded, in order to deal better with the cases of the traffic accidents. For example,busying rescue injured but no leaving the scene and actively cooperating with the police, after accident,on the way hospital or in the hospital the perpetrator does not leave the scene although he has the chance,only if leaving the scene for the injured,above the aspects should be determined the surrender.Suspect's manages, the vehicle's owner or the vehicle's tenant must be trouble with the negligence of supervision. It is desirable to some degree for the determinations of the crime of causing traffic accidents concerning the suspect's manages, the vehicle's owner or the vehicle's tenant according to the negligence of supervision, while the scope of negligence must be limited in order to abide by the restraining principle of the criminal law. In fact, the judicial interpretations had also defined the fault scope to"inciting or compelling". In fact, inciting or compelling is not only the solicitation but the commission of joint offense from the criminal law. That is to say, the jointion is the commission ,about the solicitaton of the suspect's manages, the vehicle's owner or the vehicle's tenant with the motoring offense of the others. The theory about the commission of joint offense should not be the basement in dealing the suspect's manages, the vehicle's owner or the vehicle's tenant, because all the commission of joint offense not the negligent offense but the intentional crime in the criminal law. This behavior's essence is a kind of the joint fault criminal act , which needs the stipulations in the laws beforehand.The applications of the escape plot in the traffic crimes have the progressive levels. Firstly, it is applicable in the determination of the conviction. Secondly, it is considered as one of the two legal aggravating plots. However, it cannot be regarded as both the conviction plot and the aggravating plot, otherwise the principle of repeated appraisal being prohibited will be violated. There are three conditions with the escape plot that will be applicable in the sentence of imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than seven years. The first condition is that the actor already committed a crime in the traffic accident. The second is that the person who caused the traffic accident was supposed to realize that there happened an accident according to the principle of the subjective and objective unifications in the criminal law. The last condition is that the responsibility person has the intention to run away from justice. It is worthy of being noticed that the plot of causing death due to escaping is different from that of causing death by another illegal activity. In many situations, the actor has the willful crime to cause accident, which is likely to constitute the murder. Concerning the killed in the escapade coulded not be explained from the principle of a legally prescribed for a specified crime but the principle of suiting punishment to crime. The killed in the escapade is the aggravated offense of this crime according to the 133th artivle of the criminal law. This kinds of death should be regarded as negligent homicide for the principle of suiting punishment to crime. When the judges decide whether the wounded has the rescue possibility and the actor realizes the state of an injury, the principle that the unclear fact should make an advantageous judgment to the defendant should be limited. The stipulation that inciting the escape constitutes the traffic crime violates the present legal rule. In fact, the nature of directing escape is the escaping punishment and lead to difficulties of Judiciary. This breaking judicial order should be treated as crime of harboring. In the case of traffic accident crimes, only when the actor has such behaviors as taking the victim from the scene of the accident to hide or abandon, should he be convicted of murder.