The Cognizance Of Death Caused By Escape In Traffic Accident

In a traffic accident,the criminal law causality is difficult to judge because of other factors intervening in the result that last happened and the hit act of the accident,whether causal relationships can be interrupted by intervening factors,the various theories about causality in the academic circles are different,and the conclusions drawn are not consistent.In addition,on the one hand,escape act serves as the basis for the traffic management authority to determine that the actor is responsible for the accident,while the main responsibility for the accident is one of the conditions that the act constitutes a traffic accident,on the other hand,escape act as an independent condition that constitutes the traffic accident crime,is there a violation of the principle of prohibiting duplicate evaluation? This article takes Chen's traffic accident case as an example,Studies the above-mentioned issues involved in the case.This article is divided into four parts:The first part is the basic situation of the case.First it introduces the brief and the fact of the case,and then,it introduces the difference between the theory and practice on the behavior of the defendant in this case,at last,the article summarizes the focus of disputes involved in differences,this leads to the article's discussion of the focus of disputes.The second part is legal analysis.Discussing the legal issues behind the focus of disputes on disagreement,in concludes that: first,the condition of Traffic Accidents conversion to Intentional Homicide;second,the question of whether the intervening factors between the hit act and the outcome of the final occurrence will have an impact in causality;thirdly,the standard of the cognizance of the careless in negligent crime;fourth,escape is taken as the basis for determining the actor's main responsibility for the accident,and it is also used as an independent condition of indictment,is it against the principle of prohibiting duplicate evaluation.The third part is the conclusion of the case.Through the second part of the dispute focus of the legal issues to carry on an in-depth discussion,draw the opinions combined with the case specific situation.Chen's abandonment has no causal relationship with the victim's death;Chen has the careless negligence in subjectively,but the crime of negligent homicide is not established;The multiple application of escape act violate the principle of prohibiting duplicate evaluation;Chen is only responsible for the damage caused by the accident in this case,based on the theory of permissible risk,it is more appropriate for the act not to betreated as a crime.The fourth part is the research enlightenment for this case.For the legal analysis and case conclusions,it is concluded that the death caused by escape in a traffic accident and turn into Intentional Homicide should distinguish the subjective mentality of the actor;The accident certificate is only used as a reference for criminal identification,judicial authorities cannot rely entirely on whether or not the actor identified as a crime;The crime of omission should accurately grasp the source of the obligation,and whether the consequences are caused that prohibited by law.