Research On The Application Of Law To The Crime Of Endangering Public Security By Dangerous Means

The crime of jeopardizing public security by hazardous means has always been controversial in articles 114 and 115 of the Criminal Law,and it is not uncommon to propose legislation to amend or even abolish this crime.Due to the ambiguity of the provisions of the criminal law on the constituent elements of this crime,judicial practice usually lacks rigor in judging the conformity of the constituent elements of this crime,resulting in inconsistent court adjudication standards,and the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case from time to time,resulting in differences in the application of law,and also leading to the arbitrary application of this crime and gradually becoming a pocket crime.Although the highest judicial organ of the state has frequently issued judicial interpretations and guidance opinions related to this crime,most of them are issued for special cases such as high-altitude projectiles and theft of manholes,which are not universal,and lack substantive judgment,and improperly expand the scope of application of this crime.These problems are particularly pronounced in cases of intentional homicide by means of dangerous methods,making the line between this crime and intentional homicide blurred and difficult to distinguish.The case of Zheng Xiao jiao was included as one of the guiding cases in the business guidance and research publications sponsored by the SPC Business Division,and the disputes and differences related to this crime were reflected in the case,reflecting the common problems existing in judicial practice in the application of this crime,and the research and application of this crime is of typical significance.Therefore,this article takes the case of Zheng Xiaojiao endangering public safety as a perspective and refines the disputes between the prosecution and defense and courts at all levels.These include the identification of an unspecified majority,the understanding of public safety,the identification of other hazardous methods,and the characterization of intentional homicide by hazardous methods.Taking the above controversy as the starting point,this paper studies and analyzes the problems existing in the current theoretical theory,legal provisions,and judicial practice of this crime,to clarify the interpretation path of the unspecified majority and reveal the organic unity of the unspecified object and the danger of behavior.Clarify the connotation of public safety and explore the intrinsic relationship between public place safety and public safety.Analyze the basic properties of hazardous methods,reveal the increasing effect of specific environmental factors on behavioral risk,and distinguish between the two types of hazardous methods.This paper puts forward an analysis idea that is confirmed by the infringement of public safety and the implementation of dangerous methods,clarifies the imaginary competition relationship between this crime and the crime of intentional homicide,and establishes a qualitative analysis model for such crimes.This is followed by a comprehensive text that provides relevant suggestions on the application of the law to the crime.The understanding of public safety should take non-specificity as the core,and assist in the interpretation from multiple angles,such as the attributes of the place,the motive for the crime,and the method of crime,so as to avoid falling into the mistake of simply identifying by quantity.In terms of the identification of other dangerous methods,a two-way judgment mechanism based on basic attributes and reference to terrorist activities is proposed,the former positively confirms the dangerous methods,and the latter reverses the non-dangerous methods.At the same time,the scope of this crime is clarified,and the basic attitude of strictly identifying dangerous methods and applying this crime cautiously is emphasized.Finally,it is proposed that the direct intention of the wrongful infringer be used as the boundary between this crime and the crime of intentional homicide committed by dangerous methods,which fully reflects the subjective malignancy of the perpetrator and does not lead to the imbalance of sentencing in the case of attempt.