A Study Of Self-Endangering Of The Victim

According to the conviction standard confirmed by article two of Several Issues concerning the trial of criminal cases of traffic accident which promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court in2000, only when the actors bear full responsibility or major, equal responsibility for the accident, they shall be convicted and published. At this point, different countries have different views about whether the Self-Endangering of the Victim behavior influence the argument scope of human behavior responsibility in criminal law theory.But the point that the victim behavior can affect the responsibility of the actor has no controversy. As a result, how would the behavior affect the responsibility and how far would it go? This issue will need to be clarified in this article.With the rise of criminal victimology, the role that victims played in victimology has been rediscovered. The time when only actors are involved in the definition of crime has gone. Nowadays, in crime, there is a close interaction between the actors and the victims, harmful results of crime are caused by both aspects. Since there are Criminal sciences integration, criminal policy factors are filled into the criminal law system, enhancing the flexibility of the criminal law system. The rediscovery of the victim in the criminology will be reflected in the system of criminal law by means of policy factors so that influence the assessment made by the criminal law about the behavior of the actor. In accordance with the law risk creation main body and power standard, there are two types of the self-endangering of victim,"self-endangering" and "endangering someone else"Self-Endangering of the Victim summed up by the Japanese jurisprudence, Criminal law theory with the point of view on this issue is not the same, The systematic position of Self-Endangering of Victim in Negligent Crime evolved from the exclusion of due care to the consent of victim, from the definition of crime to the level of wrongfulness. Finally this issue was divided into two levels, i. e. the level of definition of crime and the level of wrongfulness. Therefore, this issue is a problem of wrongdoing but not a one of cul-pability. Nevertheless, the distinction between self-endangering and endangering by another in German case law can neither be justified nor be adequately distinguished from each other. It will effectively affect such as burden of proof in crime law and education mode of the crime law. Now, A majority of theories tend to use self-responsibility theory to solve this problem, no clear perpetrator behavior under what conditions is not attributable, different scholars have different conditions set, get the different conclusion. Explore the reasons, the self-responsibility theory is still the basis of specific facts to set conditions. Theory of Objective Imputation, conditional relevancy; equivalent relevancy; risk relevancy; protective purpose relevancy, the basis for determining the conditions set in the legal norm. Unified criteria, ensure the completeness of the criminal law system and the authority of the Criminal law.With the theory of objective imputation to analyze self-endangering of the victim, conditional relevancy:ascertaining causation relationship; equivalent relevancy: ascertaining significant relationship; risk relevancy:evaluating the breach of the duty in matters; protective purpose relevancy:evaluating the coordination of legal interest in matters. Four levels to appeal a behavior whether or not to be blame the objective basis. With the theory of objective imputation, self-endangering of the victim is not guilty.