Involved In A De Facto Marriage Not As A Crime Problem Research

The specific legal obligation between the husband and wife is that they should raise mutually. This obligation can be extended to the obligation that the husband and wife should rescue each other by the money. But in theoretical circle, the disputations still exist on whether the personal rescue obligation exists. De facto marriage is not recognized by civil law in China, but in fact, de facto marriage is prevailing in the real life, and cases caused by this reason are more and more concerned. In order to protect Rechtsgut, de facto marriage is recognized by criminal law. With regard to the behavior that between the couple, one suicides because of their conflict but the other does not perform any rescue behavior, whether the obligation originates from pre-activity or regulation, whether the care obligation exists, this article will quote a complex case to start a discussion about above questions.According to the writing requirements of case analysis, this article is divided into 4 parts:First part: introduction of the case. This analysis is based on a real case and the case will reflect some import theoretical points. From this Perspective. The author will state his views. Second part: disputation and divergence of the case. This part will state t the grounds of appeal of accused person and the paraclete's submission in detail, and discuss whether it constitutes deliberate murder.Third part: jurisprudence analysis. This part will divide into 5 sub-parts:1. Analyze the position of de facto marriage in criminal law. As civil law hasn't recognized de facto marriage, this article will discuss whether unmarried cohabitants should have Obligations between the husband and wife in criminal law concretely.2. The article 20 of Chinese marriage law states that the couple have the obligation of raising mutually, but there are no regulations about whether the couple should rescue each other. Is the behavior that the couple don't rescue each other negative crime? The problem has lots of disputation in criminal law theoretical circles. Is the obligation that the couple should rescue each other a pure moral obligation or criminal law obligation? This article will analyze this problem theoretically and draw a conclusion.3. What is the position of pre-activity in negative crime? Can nonfeasance be regarded as pre-activity? The author considers that nonfeasance cannot be treated as pre-activity. If nonfeasance can be regarded as pre-active, there may be coincidence in some pure omission and impure omission of pre-activity. Nowadays in juridical practice, more and more cases that between the couple. One suicides because of their conflict but the other does not perform any rescue behavior are increasing. Whether pre-activity should be used to regulate the rescue obligation between the couple is still to be considered. With this case, the author will analyze whether behaviors in the reference case can be regarded as pre-activity.4. Intent and fault constitute the subjective culpability, and there is a certain standard to distinguish between indirect intent and over-confidence fault. Indirect intent refers to the behavior that somebody foresees the possible harmful consequences, but let it happen deliberately. While over-confidence fault is another behavior, that is to say, somebody is fully aware of the possibility of the happening of harmful consequences, but still makes the estimation that expectation of favorable factors will over the possibility of the happening of the harmful consequences by his own experience, and takes a series of measures to prevent the occurrence of the harmful consequences. Over-confidence fault is less willing to see the happening of harmful consequence than indirect intent.5. There are disputations on whether causality exists in negative crime. The author thinks that causality of criminal law exists negative crime. Because the actor's nonfeasance results in harmful consequences. The actor's nonfeasance promotes the harmful consequences indirectly.This causality exists objectively and is to be evaluated by law.Fourth part: conclusion.In this part, the author draws a conclusion by analyzing the conviction of this case, combined with jurisprudence. Considering the defendant has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the court of first instance, according to the related regulation of standardization of sentencing, the author presents his opinion based on the comparison of similar cases.