Research On The Imputation Path Of Supervisory Negligence Crime From The Perspective Of Duality

The supervision of negligent crime is the response of criminal law to a risk society.The list of criminal law-related crimes undoubtedly opened up the accountability of the fault of indirect actors,but the complexity and confusion of the supervision fault theory makes the supervision and management accountability lack uniform standards in actual judicial practice.Accountability shows "diversity".The crime of supervising negligence is like the sword of Shang Fang who condemns the supervisors.The occurrence of major accidents and harmful results becomes an irresistible invitation to the urn.As a result,the blame and public opinion judgment become more and more fierce.This is undoubtedly a wanton expansion of the scope of criminal law rectification,which is detrimental to the protection of human rights.Although we admit that the supervision of negligent crime itself is the expansion of the criminal circle under the guidance of the general preventive criminal policy,but grasping the reasonable scope of the expansion makes the criminal law clear and the attribution controllable is an inevitable requirement of the criminal law human rights protection function.This article attempts to Find a reasonable living space between the two.It tries to give reference suggestions for supervising the negligence of crimes through theoretical clarification and exploration of specific paths.The first part of the thesis defines the basic problems of supervising negligent crimes.Negligent crime supervision is a form of negligent crime in the business fieldwhere a supervisor who has an obligation to supervise management fails to perform its duties with due diligence,which results in an improper behavior caused by the supervised person causing a harmful result.It is the product of the adjustment of negligence theory under the purpose of prevention-oriented criminal law in a risk society,and has the support of criminal law legislation.The crimes of supervising negligent crimes are mainly concentrated in two chapters: crimes against public safety and crimes of dereliction of duty.Among them,crimes of major liability accidents and crimes of negligence of duty have the leading position,and other homogeneous crimes that do not have criminal charges alone are included.The second part makes a negative answer to whether the supervision fault can solve the problem of liability in the traditional fault theory through the review and reflection of the traditional fault theory.In the old and new fault theories,the possibility of predicting the outcome lies at the logical starting point of imputation,implying "domination" and concatenation between "foreseeing" and "responsible",but the non-singularity of the subject and the asymmetry of information in the risk society make The link between "predictable" and "disposable" is broken,and the theory of liability for negligence based on "probability of predictable outcome" is stretched to the point of monitoring negligent regulation.At the same time,the lack of normative evaluation of the "foreseeable possibility of outcome" also makes it impossible to bear the heavy burden of criminal law norms.The new negligence theory limits the responsibility of negligence to the wrongful class,and attempts to limit the scope of negligence at the level of illegality.However,the standard of obligation to supervise the negligence is mostly extra-legal,and as a result,the obligation cannot be resolved independently Pay attention to the problem of the violation of obligations related to the violation of legal interests,and it is also difficult to restrict the liability of negligence;at the same time,the obligation of avoidance of results often depends on the possibility of avoidance of results.In the traditional theory of negligence,"possibility of avoidance of results" Taking the "results almost ascertained and avoided" as the blame criterion is contrary to the indirectness of the causal relationship that oversees the fault.The third part of the argument advocates the rationality and feasibility of the standpoint of oversight fault selection norms.The theoretical basis for the fault of supervising fault blame is that there is no deviation from the logical category of will blame,whether it is the new fault theory,the old fault theory or other derivative theories.Based on the essence of negligence in that the behavior objectively deviates from the general standard of conduct judgment,the supervisory negligence can be freed from the traditional negligence attribution dilemma that takes the foreseeable possibility as the starting point of liability,and turns to "standardized liability".Negligent crimes are characterized by violations of the norms of attention.To achieve an advancement to the criminal law that does not allow danger,the standardization of criminalization must be compared.The norms of attention must be understood within the framework of criminal law.The purpose of the norms is of considerable significance.At the same time,the purpose of the norm is not illusory but can be explored through specific paths,which is feasible.The fourth part chooses the appropriate methodology.Under the theoretical framework of objective attribution,it explores the specific normative path of the dual supervision of negligence crime.The normative attribution model provides a new logical starting point of fault attribution that is applicable to the social background of risk and is different from the attribution of will-the domination of risk.From the perspective of objective attribution,we plan the path of attribution for the oversight of the two stages of risk and risk realization that Chuang managed to not allow.The public entity and the non-public business entity under the supervision of negligence show a dual trend in the risk stage that the management does not allow.First of all,everyone only bears the obligation to pay attention to the risks in the areas that they can control.The fault blame is directly based on the dominant judgment based on the risks.Due to the differences in the sources of domination between public and non-public business entities,the supervision relationship within each system is differentiated.In the stage of risk that is not allowed to be created,the substantive basis of the risk-making that is not allowed by law under the supervision and negligence scenemust be clarified.The inherent logic of risk control,breach of duty of care,and risk-making that is not allowed by law must be cleared.The risk control of non-public official supervisors is based on the existence of the supervisory relationship,combined with the breach of the duty of attention,in the case of determining the existence of the duty of attention from the perspective of ordinary people and conforming to the orientation of criminal regulations,the law certainly does not allow the creation of risks.The risk control of public officials' supervisors is consistent with violation of the duty of attention,and creates a risk that is not allowed on the basis of restricting the purpose of the norms of attention.In the stage of risk realization that is not allowed by the law,the minimum compulsory alternative behavior that meets the purpose of the specification is selected as the comparison object,and the risk increase theory is used as the standard for risk realization.Through the creation and realization of risks that are not allowed by the law that complies with the constituent elements,the dual liability of supervision faults is completed.