The Analysis Of The Nature And The Criminal Pattern Of Threatening To Detonate Dangerous Goods But Giving Up At Last

With the continuous development of economy and the acceleration of society rhythm,the pressure of people has increased gradually.It easily triggers people’ sensitive nerves for being under the pressure,as a result,it usually causes the disputes for some trivial things in people daily contacts.Some disputes are solved without consequences,but sometimes the provoked party may take fire,explosion,poisoning and other extreme measures to revenge on each other.It is evitable to harm to the victim’s life and property safety,meanwhile it also endanger the public safety of society.This kind of phenomenon is far from the requirement of a harmonious society.In such process,It will has the argument between the specific crime of endangering public safety,such as Arson,Explosion and the crime of jeopardizing public security with risky method for how to define the act of endangering public security.At the same time,it may be difficult to recognize the nature of a number of criminal acts.It is often controversial to punish the behaviors through the way of selecting the more serious penalty or the way of combined penalty of several crimes.In addition,there is also a kind of situation that the criminal behaviors often give up their criminal act and stop the appearance of badly consequences after their anger disappearing.Namely how to define that situation which the criminal behaviors automatically to give up its crime and ultimately do not cause significant damage.For that,it has trigger hot discuss between criminal theory and judicial practice,and both sides have different opinion.In this paper,the author will through a real example in Jiangsu province as an example,analyzing the related issues of legal theory then put forwards the judicial suggestion for the familiar problem mentioned former,hoping to provide a reference for similar cases.Meanwhile,the author has made the further thinking for the criminal law which highlights in the case,hoping to inspire people who may deepen the research of the related criminal law theory in the future.This article consists of four parts,a total of about 20000 words.The first part: The basic situation of the case.This part includes the cause of action,the introduction of the case,the diverse views and disputes.The dispute mainly focus mainly focus on four aspects,first,Mr.Guan’s acts belong to the explosion crime and the crime of dangerous driving or belonging to the crime of jeopardizing public security with risky method and the crime of dangerous driving? Second,Mr.Guan’s acts belong to implicated offender which should be punished for the more serious crime or Mr.Guan’s acts belong to several offenses which should be punished by combined punishment for several offenses? Third,whether Mr.Guan’s acts can be defined as the discontinuation of crime because of his automatic giving up his criminal act and preventing from the harm result? Fourth,whether Mr.Guan’s acts of giving up the criminal act automatically has caused damage?The second part: The legal analysis of the related problems.The part will base on the focus of controversy in this case to analyze and explore the related theoretical issues deeply,including the difference between the crime of explosion and crime of jeopardizing public security with risky method,the definition of the implicated offender,the cognizance of implicated relationship,the definition of dangerous crime and the analysis and recognition of the criminal pattern of the dangerous crimes.The emphasis is on the analysis of the criminal pattern of dangerous crime,and with which as the premise to further explore the situation whether the act should be viewed as discontinuation of crime after the critical condition appearance combining the connotation and legislative intent of discontinuation of crime.The above analysis will lay the basis on the further specific analysis of the case.The third part: The analysis and conclusion of the case.This part is mainly based on the analysis of the second part combining with the specific circumstances of the case to dissect the disputable focal point,and then finally draw the conclusion of the paper argues.By the analysis of the explosion crime and crime of jeopardizing public security with risky method clarify the difference between them then to accurately identify the nature of Mr.Guan’s acts.On such basis,further analyze the definition of the two acts to acquire the conclusion that Mr.Guan’s acts should be punished by the way of combined punishment for several crimes instead of implicated offender.Then,analyze the criminal pattern of Mr.Guan criminal act.The behave of Mr.Guan’s opening the gas cylinder valve and preparing to igniting has reached the perilous state of the threat to public safety,but his behave of automatically giving up detonating gas canisters meet the requirements of the constitution of discontinuation of crime,so finally conclude that Mr.Guan constitute the crime of dangerous driving and crime of explosions and combined punishment for several crimes.The crime of explosion belongs to discontinuation of crime and no damage,shall be exempted from punishment.The fourth part: the enlightenment of the research of the case.This part mainly includes the enlightenment which the author obtain through summarize the legal theory and practice problems in the case.First of all,for the affirmation of the criminal pattern of the dangerous which is controversial all the time,especial the affirmation of the automatically giving up the criminal act and preventing from the damage after the perilous state appearance,need adhere to the principle that affirm the criminal pattern till the criminal act pauses and need to distinguish the difference between crime accomplishment and crime establishment.At the same time,adhere to the "tempering justice with mercy" criminal policy as a guide and the principle of a legality,so as to realize the fairness and justice of law.Second,grasp legislation purpose of discontinuation of crime,so as to realize the ultimate purpose of criminal law which educates the criminals "put down the butcher’s knife rather than respond with force.Again,we should accurately clarify the boundaries of the similar crime,such as the difference between the crime of explosion,arson etc.and the crime of jeopardizing public security with risky method;as a result we can follow the principle of legality earnestly and accurately recognize the related charges.Finally,when the criminals may have a variety of criminal acts which may be affirmed as the implicated offender,we need to analyze the essence of implicated offender,namely recognizing the two acts having the typed link in daily life and inevitable logic connection is the premise.