Negligent Crime And Objective Imputation:the Advocacy Of Behavior-based Pattern

In the field of culpability of negligence results,the old negligence theory is based on the possibility of foreseeing at the subjective level,which easily expands the scope of punishment and is suspected of liability for results.The new negligence theory focuses on the avoidance of the obligation to the result,and the reverse of the obligation to avoid the obligation to pay attention to the person.This still reflects the valueless position of the result,which does not conform to the causal logic of behavior to result in the criminal process.The double emphasis of behavioral value theory on criminal law conduct norms and judgment norms makes it able to withstand the torture of the statutory principle of crime,the principle of accountability,the principle of non-traceability and the previous principles,and makes the human rights guarantee function of criminal law fundamentally possible.The criminal behavior violates the reasonable expectation of the criminal law norms,so the criminal law should be intervened.Of course,the protection of legal interests is the ultimate goal of criminal law formulation,promulgation and implementation.With the help of the criminal law normative behavior guidance function.The result avoidance possibility theory is centered on the result attribution link,which inevitably uses hypothetical causality,but the efforts to distinguish the result avoidance possibility thinking path from the hypothetical causality are not successful.The theory of result avoidance possibility is rooted in the theory of result valuelessness,adopting a simple and objective principle of legal benefit measurement in the judgment of negligence,and simply replacing interest with legal benefit,which further exacerbates the theoretical crisis of result avoidance possibility.At the level of criminal policy,the theory of outcome avoidance possibility faces criticism that proves that the standard is too high and is not conducive to the general prevention of crime.The trend of criminal law prevention in the context of risk society has made the criminal law system and criminal law theory undergoing deconstruction and reconstruction.The purpose of criminal law normative protection has changed from avoiding the infringement of legal interests to avoiding the risk of increasing the infringement of legal interests.The transition to behavior-based.The risk-rising theory is based on behavior.It is forbidden to raise the risks faced by legal benefits in a legally important way.It pays attention to and respects social norms.Actors should properly define their social roles and arrange themselves when participating in social life Activity space,and ensure that no danger to the interests of others is output from this activity space.The combination of increased risk theory and behavioral blame is conducive to general prevention and reflects the functional side of criminal law participating in social governance.The risk-rising theory based on the social responsibility theory integrates the social dimension into the construction of the concept of criminal responsibility and promotes the transformation of the criminal law theory.The result of negligent behavior resulting in infringement of legal benefits is to have all the constitutive elements of blame.Factors are excluded from the process of illegal identification,and since then the hypothetical causality has no place.The risk-risking theory absorbs the reasonable content of objective liability theory,and divides the liability component into behavioral liability and result-based liability.The behavioral liability-based component focuses on the negligent implementation behavior,and the result-based liability is related to the purpose of normative protection.The purpose of functional criminal law or preventive criminal law is to avoid the occurrence of harmful results,so reducing the probability of the results itself has criminal policy significance.Reconstructed the theory of increased risk of normative connection at the level of fact attribution,lowered the standard of fact attribution,but did not obscure the standard of conviction or promote the purely instrumentalization of criminal law.