In Terms Of Possibility Of Avoiding The Consequences

Most of us have an idea that one person who violates a code and causes harm is responsible for it,because in an event where someone made a mistake and no one took responsibility,Whether from the perspective of punishing the perpetrator for his wrongful act,giving the victim and his family an explanation,or appeasing the public’s sympathy for the victim and anger for the perpetrator,this is hardly acceptable.At present,there is a common phenomenon in China’s judicial practice to blame the consequences of negligent offenders.As long as the harmful consequences are caused by the perpetrators,the court will determine the results to blame the perpetrators.However,it is doubtful whether this " broad-brush " approach can make the masses feel fairness and justice in every judicial case.Legislators set a rule to prohibit or should be a certain behavior and have certain obligations,Then the legislator believes that compliance with this provision can effectively avoid harmful consequences,and expects the public to comply with this provision and maintain the stability of social order.And the masses also need an explanation from the law,why I was forbidden to do this behavior,why I was required to fulfill this obligation,and why the law gave others that right.The law is indeed authoritative and compulsory,but "violence" alone is not enough.Contemporary society is no longer a dictatorship of the monarch,but a people’s democracy.The law needs the belief of the people.The basis of belief is understanding.Why the law stipulates this,and the best explanation is that it is forbidden to conduct or restrict a right because it is not good to do so,and it is harmful to other legal interests,and doing it in accordance with the rules will effectively avoid harmful consequences.In German and Japanese criminal law,the possibility of consequence avoidance plays an important role in judging the causality of negligent offenders and innocent offenders.In our country,due to the frequent occurrence of traffic accidents in recent years,the difficult problems of multi-cause and one-effect liability determination,and the confusion between administrative responsibility and criminal responsibility in judicial practice,the academic circles have increasingly discussed the theory of the possibility of avoiding consequences.Discussing the judgments scattered in causality,the theory of objective imputation,imputation of negligent offenses,imputation of innocent omissions,etc.,few scholars have systematically integrated them.In addition,there are still some doubts about the possibility of avoidance of results,such as the systemic problem of the possibility of avoidance of results.Can it be regarded as a type of legitimate defense and emergency avoidance as an independent deterrent factor or as an auxiliary? Judging factors that are quite causal;how should you judge the outcome to avoid the possibility,and whether you can draw an accurate conclusion,even an accurate number,through current science and technology.These issues need to be resolved urgently.Most of the academic circles agree that the actor cannot be blamed if it is determined that there is no possibility of avoidance of the result,but there is a huge controversy in the academic community about whether to blame when the possibility of avoidance of the result is in doubt.The two mainstream views are the "suspicion in favor of the defendant" principle and the "rising risk" theory.The essence of the argument between the two views is that the crime of negligence and the crime of inattention required by the crime of inaction are not intended to reduce risk or avoid consequences.happened.We should accurately realize that the crime of negligence and non-committal crime requires the actor to assume the purpose of avoiding harmful consequences.The administrative law requires the actor to perform the obligation to reduce the risk.When in doubt,the principle of favoring doubt should be applied.The effect of avoiding the possibility has the effect of limiting the blame and the crime of the defendant,but it is also necessary to guard against the criminals using the result to avoid the possibility of escaping the punishment they should be punished.Higher professional competence requirements.China’s judicial justice has a long way to go,and as a result,the status of avoiding possibility cannot be ignored.