Death Of Ren Xiaoxue From Scalding By Her Mother He Shuangmei In Bathing: A Culpability Analysis

Indirect intention and over-confidence-paradox not only of these two forms have greatersin controversial theory of criminal law, and in judicial practice specific cases it is difficult toaccurately identify. This paper focuses on the case about He shuang mei giving her daughter abath, who is scalded to death, in theory, how to distinguish between the two and what thejudicial practice carried out a detailed analysis of revelation. Accurately identified on thenature of the criminal case, to adhere to the principles of legality and liability doctrine, acomprehensive analysis of the various factors of the case, taken from the objective to thesubjective analysis of the path. Accurately identify the perpetrator’s guilt is not only the formand content of the basic requirements of sin principle of legality, but also for the maintenanceof social justice, highlighting the significance of the fair has important social value.This paper is divided into four parts.The first part introduces the basic circumstances of the case, all points of view and thefocus of controversy. The defendant in this case the use of high temperature hot water bath forwomen in the process, resulting in serious burns victim subsequently died. After the incident,around the case generated a great deal of qualitative differences, mainly between the crime ofintentional injury (indirect intention) and negligence causing death. Focus of controversyfocused on the form and content of the defendant’s guilt, indirect intentional negligence oroverconfident, is deprived of life or damage to health.The second part of the theoretical aspects of the relevant issues in detail. Indirectintentional negligence and overconfidence in knowledge of factors and will have differentfactors. The former recognizes the possibility and necessity of harmful results occur, the latteronly recognizes the possibility of the occurrence of the results, and the possibility ofunderstanding with the contents of this negative result occurred. Will factors, the formerindulgence, tolerance harmful consequences occur, the latter against exclusion harmful results.Will distinguishing factor is the nature of both factors. In distinction between indirectintentional negligence and overconfident many standard, should be based on the theory oftolerance, combined probability theory, theory of comprehensive anti-fruit found.The third part of the second part of the analysis of the theoretical basis, combined withthe specific facts of the case, the contents of the form of sin and guilt of the defendant carriedout a detailed analysis. The defendant has a clear understanding scald results, choose a very substandard way of common sense bathing, letting the burns result, it did not take activemeasures to rescue the victims, should be an indirect form of deliberate sin, death shouldadhere to a reasonable understanding of the results of the subjective said a comprehensiveanalysis.Part IV Conclusions and Implications of the case, including a comprehensive analysisthat the defendant constitutes a crime of intentional injury (indirect intent). In distinguishingindirect intentional and negligent overconfident, understanding factors that people shouldfocus on grasping behavior to avoid the occurrence of harmful results of subjective andobjective factors and the specific attitude of understanding of these factors, the analysis willfocus on the behavior of human factors that should be the result of specific hazards attitude,choose the way in which the perpetrator is an important aspect of the specific behavioranalysis. In addition, the facts of the case, the behavior of people have not taken activemeasures to avoid the harmful consequences of their sin is also considered an important formof information.