Study The Nontypical Omission Based On A Case Of Mr Li's Dead Because Of Mistakenly Eating The Poison

The typical omission has been expressly stipulated in Criminal Law,so there aren't any different standpoints about judicial cognizance. But the nontypical omission has not been expressly stipulated in Criminal Law as other countries',at the same time, the theory on crime is studied on the focus of typical omission,so it is very difficult to make the judicial cognizance of nontypical omission.But we can find many cases about investigating,charging and convicting the offense of nontypical omission.Studying the nontypical omission can help the judge to deal with the similar cases,or rather, it's meaningful.Paper sets about the case of Mr Li's dead because of mistakenly eating the poison,is based on the different views at the present stage(Some people have the idea that Mr Zhang is a homicide with intentional crime,some people think that the dead was caused by the negligence of Mr Zhang,others insist that Mr Zhang is innocent.), refines the different standpoints about nontypical omission(How can we cognize the deed obligation of offense nontypical omission?Is there the criminal causality between omission and harm result?), studies the nontypical omission according to the scientific theory and the judicial view. I think that Mr Zhang is innocent.On the one hand,Mr Zhang doesn't have the deed obligation,which expressly stipulated in Criminal Law.And Mr Zhang doesn't also the position or business obligation.The dangerous situation,which Mr Li is in,isn't inevitable caused by the joke of Mr Zhang who factually says"pill"is"TangWan". Mr Zhang's deed isn't the reason of Mr Li's dead. So the deed that Mr Zhang doesn't rescue isn't in according with the obligation of first behavior.If Mr Zhang has essential deed obligation, his deed must have the under conditions.Firstly,Mr Zhang's omission does urgently harm to Mr Li's health. Secondly, Mr Zhang's omission is the exclusive dominant to the harm result.Lastly, there is a possibility of deed. Because Mr Zhang's omission only has the first condition,he dosen't have the essential deed obligation.On the other hand,there isn't the criminal causality between Mr Zhang's omission and the harm result.Firstly,Mr Zhang doesn't have the deed obligation, the relation between Mr Zhang's omission and Mr Li's dead dosen't have the characteristics of nontypical omission's causality,so there isn't the criminal causality between Mr Zhang's omission and the Mr Li's dead.Secondly,when Mr Zhang cann't stop Mr Li from eating the poison,he immediately let Mr Li have a drink,in addition,when they have supper,Mr Li has more bowl of soup.There aren't poisoning symptoms among two hours.In line with life experience,in normal circumstances,the toxicosis happened on Mr Li cann't lead to his dead.There isn't"equivalence"between Mr Zhang's omission and Mr Li's dead.