The Division Of Practice Between The Crime Of Causing Traffic Accident And The Crime Of Endangering The Public By Dangerous Methods

In dealing with criminal cases related to motor vehicles,the distinction between the crime of traffic accidents and the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods is difficult,and the theoretical circles are also controversial.The most important difference between the two crimes is that they discriminate whether the subjective psychology of the perpetrator is indirect intentional or overconfident.Theories that distinguish the two mainly include "tolerance theory","covering the nature" and "recognition theory"."Tolerance Theory" is a general theory of traditional criminal law.It believes that the subjective psychology of the perpetrator is discerned through the will factor."Cognitive theory" advocates deliberate identification only needs to consider cognitive factors,and does not need to consider the will factor,the will factor to the cognitive factor.Based on and based on cognitive factors."Beganly speaking" believes that the above two theories do not have a good deliberate intention and negligence.They believe that the perpetrator realizes the probabilistic effect of the result and still implements the behavior,which can affirm its subjective intention.On the contrary,if it does not recognize The probabilistic result of the result is that it lacks the possibility of deliberately committing the illegal consciousness,and at most it is only a refusal to impose a perpetrator.In theory,there are still different interpretations of the concept of "dangerous methods" for the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods.The connotation of "dangerous methods" is not fully summarized.Some scholars also strongly support the view of criminality,and agree to determine the nature of the case through the dangerous results of criminal acts.The theoretical views of the general public have increased the difficulty of dividing the two crimes in the practice.Based on this,the author collected 100 relevant cases,including the supreme people's court for dealing with dangerous driving crime cases.From the real case to explore the court on how to determine the nature of the two crimes.From the collected samples,the qualitative disputes on the case focus on whether there is a second impact,different types of causing an accident and different degrees of harm.The court has different arguments and arbitrary standards in the three types of traffic accidents.Trafficcrimes shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years is the minimum legal sentence of no escape,and the crime of endangering public security with dangerous method is the minimum statutory punishment shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years,as yet have serious consequences,so big gap between the two crimes of legal punishment,in the qualitative actor also condemned the offender sentence.Therefore,while sorting out the cases,we also find out the theoretical disputes about the identification of the two crimes,and it is particularly important to make a deep theoretical interpretation of the relationship between the identification of the two crimes.Summarizing the theoretical disputes between the two crimes,100 related cases were collected,including the cases involving dangerous driving crimes collected by the Supreme People's Court.Exploring how to apply the two crimes from real cases.From the sample cases collected,it can be found that the case dispute mainly focuses on whether there are secondary impact behaviors in the accident cases,different types of anecdotes and different levels of harm caused by the anecdotes.For example,in the sample case,the court found 32 cases of serious accidents(causing three or more casualties),27 cases were found to be dangerous by public security,and 5 were found to be traffic accidents.The minimum statutory penalty for traffic accidents is three years imprisonment(no escape),and the minimum statutory penalty for dangerous methods of endangering public safety is imprisonment for three years or more(without serious consequences),two crimes The large gap in statutory penalties,while characterizing the perpetrators,is also doomed to the world of the perpetrators.Therefore,while combing the sample case,the main reason for analyzing the two crimes is that it is difficult to divide the two crimes in practice.Excessive attention to behavior leads to harmful results in practice,and the use of harmful results to reverse the case of the case,leading to the prevalence of the concept of criminal punishment,the subjective psychology of the perpetrator Distinguish,so when the crime is determined,the subjective psychology of the perpetrator is ignored.In response to trials and theoretical issues,it is proposed to distinguish betweentwo crimes: trial practice abandons the conviction of conviction only,and as long as it is a traffic accident case that causes heavy casualties,the court tends to recognize the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods;different types Differentiating case handling,we should not only pay attention to the commonality of similar cases,but ignore the individuality of the individual's case;clarify the subjective psychology between the two crimes and distinguish between the two crimes.The most important thing is to distinguish between indirect intention and overconfident negligence;To improve the statutory penalty for traffic accidents and to uphold the basic principle of crimes and punishments,we can learn from the advanced experience of extraterritorial legal developed countries.Japan has enacted a crime of causing death from dangerous driving,and its statutory penalty is based on the crime of injury.The establishment and application of the objective has produced general preventive effects such as deterrence suppression.