The Research On The Problem Of "Death Caused By Escape" In The Crime Of Causing Traffic Casualties

On the basis of the harm of the hit-and-run behavior,especially the death caused by the hit-and-run behavior,the Criminal Law has raised the statutory penalty of traffic accident crime and stipulated escaping causing death as the aggravating circumstance of traffic accident crime.However,due to the deficiencies and conflicts in the criminal law and related judicial interpretations,there are many controversies in the theoretical circle on the issue of the identification of "death caused by escape,,and the judicial practices often appear to common case of different judgments about it.In order to better fight the hit-and-un crimes which cause the death,it is necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis and scientific definition of the clause of "death caused by escape" in the crime of causing traffic casualties.This article combines specific cases with existing theoretical foundations and adopts the way of deconstruction analysis to graspe the exact meaning of "death caused by escape" after clarifying the identification problems of each part when discussing the clause.Whether from the legislative intent,the principle of suiting punishment of crime or its own legal nature,the premise of recognizing the,,death caused by escape" requires the troublemaker's previous act of causing traffic accident to constitute the crime of causing traffic casualties in the first place.The purpose of canonical protection is key to understanding escape behavior,we should start from the canonical protection purpose of"rescuing victims" and define the escape behavior as an act of escaping without fulfilling the obligation of rescuing the victim when analyzing the clause of "death caused by escape".Among them,the behavior of escaping after the accident and Letting others take the blame not not only meets the conditions for the establishment of the hit-and-run behavior but also destroys normal judicial activities and violates the legal benefits of nuisance testimony.So,if the troublemaker's previous anecdotes have reached the standard of conviction for traffic accident crime,such behavior of escaping and letting others take the blame shall be punished concurrently for several crimes according to the crime of causing traffic casualties and the crime of impairing testifying.The "person" in " death caused by escape" should be limited to the victim in the first accident and can not include the victim in the second accident caused by the actor during the escape process.In understanding the causal relationship between the escape behavior and the death outcome,it is necessary to grasp from the three aspects of the death result that should occur after the escape,the possibility of the victim being rescued,and the influence of other intervention factors.The subjective sin of the actor's death outcome to the victim can only be limited to negligence.In response to the "letting escape behavior" stipulated in the interpretation,it should be negatively opposed to the idea of identifying it as a accomplice to traffic accidents.On this basis,"letting escape behavior" should be dealt with separately.When the person negligently instigates the troublemaker to run away,it is advisable to deal with it in accordance with the principle of innocence.On the contrary,when his instigating behavior is part of a deliberate act,it should be recognized as the instigator of the crime of intentional homicide of omission.