On The Identification Of The Crime Of Intentional Injury

Bodily Harm is a higher incident rate of crime, It is another violation of the object's life and health, life and health is one of the most important legal interests, so the crime of intentional injury has been focused on China's criminal law to combat crime. In judicial practice, if allowed the identification of the crime of intentional injury, rash qualitative, not only would undermine judicial authority, and not conducive to social harmony and stability. In this paper constitutes the crime of intentional injury, intentional injury and criminal law legal interests are protected as the focus, combined with the principles of law negates the subject, demonstrated the welfare of mentally handicapped children the right to dispose of the personal, is a violation of criminal law to protect the crime of intentional injury of legal interests.This paper uses case studies of writing, girls with intellectual disabilities through the removal of organs welfare case analysis leads to the law there is considerable controversy on the issue, and issues related to their own humble opinion. This article about 16,000 words, divided into five parts total, of which the third part of the article focuses on the parts.The first part of the cause of action and the case for the introduction. The selected part of a real case - the case of welfare organ removal mentally retarded girl, detailed description of the circumstances of the case, the court's final ruling four defendants guilty of intentional assault, and the Department of the crime, but people can protect our country has been the guardian of the personal rights of action on this issue in the legislation is not perfect, therefore, in theory and in practice, the case caused an uproar, a great controversy.The second part is the focus of the case. I made the present case there is a big four specific focus of the dispute: whether the personal rights of mentally retarded children by their guardians punishment? Guardian of the personal rights of mentally disabled children punishment (removal of the decision behavior of mentally retarded children, the uterus) constitute the crime of intentional injury? Case, the main suspect what? Welfare can not constitute the main body of the crime of intentional injury? Social morality, ethics and conflict of laws, how to choose?The third part is the focus of disagreement and legal analysis. This article focuses on part of the chapter describes the selected part is based on real case gives rise to differences of opinion: first, whether the guardian is the guardian of the personal rights of action? The issue revolves around the "mentally healthy people who can enjoy equal and personal rights (reproductive rights)" and "guardian of the right to decide whether the removal of the organs of two mentally retarded girls," these two aspects are discussed. Second, the guardian of the personal rights of mentally retarded children punishment (removal of the decision behavior of mentally retarded children, the uterus) constitute the crime of intentional injury? I held in theory and practice in the different point of view, to explore the case of intentional assault in the main, subjective, object identification, interpretation of the orphanage as a public agency, disposition of the personal rights of minors who are mentally retarded have a legal basis , whether their actions violated the criminal law to protect the legal interests. Third, when the social morality, ethics and conflict of laws, how to choose the problem. Case, the ethical and legal game reflected most vividly in the present case, both the pros and cons, life and health quality of life is more important or more important, the author and euthanasia, compared with the combination of our existing laws, proposed own humble opinion.This fourth part is the foreign legislation and case law in similar cases. Through the introduction of extra-territorial legislation, a reflection of our country and abroad, similarities and differences between the types of cases handled, to provide similar problems for future reference.The last part of case assessment. The author's decision on the case put forward their views, either from the application of the law or from the social effects point of view, I believe that the court's decision is lawful, reasonable, not only demonstrates the proper administration of justice, and weigh the interests of all parties. At the same time, the case also highlights China's legal guardian at the personal right to dispose of the problem is the existence of legal gaps, therefore, to improve the future of criminal law legislation on this issue, constantly update the concept of judicial protection, improve the criminal law protection system.