Research On The Crime Of Impairing Infectious Disease Prevention

In the event of sudden public health incidents,we should not rely too much on strengthening the contingency capacity of criminal governance through the criminal justice process,adhere to the relatively restrained criminal justice with a positive view of criminal law legislation,and pay attention to strengthening the necessary allocation of criminal law legislative tasks.However,at present,there are some inconsistencies in the legislation of the crime of hindering the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases,and some adjustments should be made to the unity of the legal order to make the overall legal order harmonious and uncontradictory.First of all,the standard of conviction and the division of circumstances should be fully and accurately grasped,and the current law provides for "causing the spread of Class An infectious diseases".It is the condition for the conviction of this crime,but there is no distinction between the general circumstances and the aggravated circumstances,which leads to the problem of how to convict and sentencing between the general crime and the aggravated crime in the judicial process.As a result,it is further caused and should not be expected to rely on the discretion of judges when a major epidemic spreads public hazards,otherwise the boundaries of judicial justice are difficult to guarantee and easily lead to the problem of different adjudication results.This paper holds that when the actor causes the actual infection of a third person(except the close relatives living with him)and causes casualties or serious irreversible physical injuries due to infection with this infectious disease,the statutory punishment of aggravated offense of not less than seven years and less than three years should be applied,that is,the determination standard of the result of causing particularly serious actual harm.In view of the judgment of serious spreading danger,the abstract uncertain danger should not be extended at will,and the necessity of penalty should be ensured to prevent the judicial attack from being too big.The legislation of this crime should pay more attention to the distinction between the criminal punishment and the administrative department,and separate the acts of hindering the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases which are not part of the criminal sanctions from this crime and classify them into the field of public security punishment or administrative punishment for rational control.At any time,the expansion of discretion is not conducive to the statutory compliance of crime and punishment,and there seem to be different evaluation criteria in different cases on the issue of confirming whether the actor is the only source of infection of other infected people in this case.this is worthy of vigilance.This charge will continue to apply after the COVID-19 epidemic has completely passed,so if the current legislative standards are too inclined to conform to some characteristics of novel coronavirus,it will lay hidden dangers to its wider application in the future.therefore,we should focus on how the setting of this charge can protect the health of the people and the realization of management order under unspecified circumstances in the future.