Research On The Judicial Application Of The Crime Of Throwing Objects From High Altitude

The high-altitude parabola that occurs frequently and has serious consequences in life has become the focus of heated discussions in society in recent years.In order to protect citizens’ "overhead safety" and respond to the high attention and actual needs of the public on the issue of high-altitude parabolas in recent years,the "Criminal Law Amendment（11）" adds the crime of throwing objects from high-altitude,and stipulates that obstructing the community in Section VI of the Criminal Law.The first section of the crime of managing order is in the crime of disrupting the public order.At present,there is no relevant judicial interpretation to provide detailed provisions and supplements for the points that may be involved in the application of the crime of high-altitude projectile.Under these circumstances,it is of great practical significance to use appropriate sample data to conduct in-depth research on the judicial application of parabolic crimes from heights,to discover problems in the application of original crimes,and to provide improvement suggestions.Search and filter high-altitude parabolic cases that occurred after the "Criminal Law Amendment（Eleven）" came into effect on platforms such as China Judgment Documents Network and Peking University Magic Weapon,and take a total of 99 cases as samples for further empirical research,and summarize the case information from the following aspects: the date and time distribution of the case,the objective behavior performance,the result of the behavior,and the subjective aspect of the offender.The results obtained reflect that the current application rate of high-altitude parabolic crime is increasing rapidly;the reasoning for conviction is generally insufficient;the protection law is ambiguous;the judicial application generally has an improper expansion of the application status.The specific problems faced by throwing from heights in the judicial application of crimes are also various,so this article cites cases to illustrate: in judicial practice,judicial organs often define the behavior of throwing from heights that should be criminalized;In the judicial application of parabolic crimes,the subjective investigation of the perpetrator is generally neglected,and there is a tendency to objectively incriminate;the boundaries between the crime of throwing objects in high altitude and the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods are blurred;In the application of a new crime,the handling of the time and effect of the application of the crime is rather confusing,and these problems have led to the improper expansion of the scope of application of the high-altitude parabolic crime.The application of high-altitude parabolic crime should be avoided from shelving and improper expansion.Therefore,it is necessary to propose corresponding improvement and solution paths for the specific application problems raised above.First of all,it is necessary to strictly control the objective aspects of the crime of throwing objects from high altitudes.In the absence of judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court,more emphasis is placed on the unity of the criteria for defining the elements to distinguish between crimes and non-crimes.Secondly,strengthen the investigation of the subjective aspect of the crime of high-altitude projectiles,and judge whether the behavior is criminal in nature and whether it can be evaluated as the crime of high-altitude projectiles.Thirdly,it is necessary to clearly define the boundaries between this crime and the crime of endangering public safety by other means that may be confused in the judiciary,and analyze the main points of distinction between the crime of high-altitude parabola and different crimes from multiple aspects,so that the crimes can be applied accurately.Finally,in cases of high-altitude projectiles involving the temporal validity of charges,the principle of retro activity should be carefully applied to avoid being influenced by the biases existing in the criminal law regulating high-altitude projectiles before the entry into force of the new charges and to insist on conviction and punishment based on the principle of statutory crime and punishment.