Disproval Of Criminalization About Non-salvation-in-danger

In recent years, you can often see the behavior of non-salvation-in-danger inChina. And there are many reports of this kind of accidents in newspapers and newsreports. It makes people think a lot. Due to the poor effect of adjusting the behavior ofnon-salvation-in-danger in moral ways, many experts and scholars came to considerhow to solve this problem. There exist a lot of controversies of whether it is necessaryto establish a specific statute to regulate this behavior.Considering various factors, in the author’s opinion, the method of regulation isnot perfect. It’s not appropriate to adopt this method in China because of Chinesenational conditions and the status of legal development. There will be a lot ofdifficulties in operational practice, so it is unrealistic. This paper analyzed severalaspects of the behavior of non-salvation-in-danger.The first part of this paper, the author analyzed a variety of viewpoints, whereexits the focuses of controversies, to confirm the details and significance of everyconstituent element. And the author also proposed a new definition, which isrelatively simple in description but comprehensive in elements. The new definitioncan be accepted by most people. The author defined the behavior ofnon-salvation-in-danger as: The people, who didn’t bear specific obligations but hadthe ability to rescue somebody out of danger, did not do the behavior. Finally harmfulconsequences occurred.The second part of this paper, the author queried the possibility and feasibility ofestablishing a statute to regulate this behavior, based on the analysis of therelationship between moral obligations and legal obligations, the modesty of criminallaw and how we deal with the judgment of the behavior of non-salvation-in-danger.And the author also explained the behavior of non-salvation-in-danger is simply amoral obligation, not a legal obligation, and it will not translate into a legal obligation easily. The modesty of criminal law requires humility and compromise. Criminal lawshould not be adopted to solve this problem. It should be avoided that criminal lawshould be modest, never beyond the line of defense, and never interval basic sociallife excessively. In the judicial practice we never see this behavior was accused ofcrime. The law only punishes those who have the legal duty to save others.In the third part of this paper, the author analyzed the unreasonable part ofestablishing a statute to regulate this behavior. This part contains the characteristics ofhuman nature itself, the relationship between morality and law, new problems we willface if we establish a statute to regulate non-salvation-in-danger. In addition, weshould not learn from foreign laws or inherit Chinese ancient laws. From thecharacters of human nature itself, self-interest and avoiding disadvantages are thenature of human. It can’t be blamed that someone do the behavior ofnon-salvation-in-danger. From the relationship between morality and law, thebehavior only relates to morality. There’s little thing to do with law. From somecriminal law theories, the author demonstrated it is not proper to establish a statute toregulate this behavior, based on the theory of omission and the theory of social harm.After comparing with foreign laws and Chinese ancient laws, the author concludedthat establishing a new charge of non-salvation-in-danger is not proper.In the final part of this paper, the author will investigate how to adjust thephenomenon in right ways. We should make full use of social diversified adjustmentmeans. On the one hand, we shall establish a reverse mechanism to encourage andreward the behavior of Samaritan. We must protect the people’s interests who rescuedothers. On the other hand, we must strengthen the work of moral education to preventa reoccurrence of the behavior of non-salvation-in-danger in the ideological level.