Study On The Form Of Guilt Of The Crime Of Obstructing The Control Of Infectious Diseases

The Criminal Law Amendment(XI),which was introduced in December 2020,amended the crime of obstructing the prevention and control of infectious diseases,but this amendment only involved the objective aspects of the crime but not the subjective aspects of the crime,and the form of guilt of this crime is still controversial.By combing and summarizing the judgment documents of this crime,it can be seen that in the determination of the form of guilt of this crime,only a few judges set out the form of guilt of this crime,most of the judges did not clearly explain the form of guilt,and the form of guilt set out in the judgment presents two views of intentional and negligence,and the determination of the form of guilt in judicial practice is vague and inconsistent,which is contrary to the basic principles of criminal law and affects the credibility of the judiciary.Not only is there disagreement in practice on the form of guilt of this crime,but there has also been controversy in the academic community on this issue,with the main views being negligence,intentional and intentional-negligence.The intentional view of the perpetrator’s state of mind to determine the form of guilt other than the legal harm results is not appropriate,and objective more than the elements and objective penalty conditions in China’s criminal law also has no place.Intentional-negligence in the form of compound guilt,coexistence of guilt and "dangerous intentional + result negligence" said all contrary to the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity,the principle of legal guilt and punishment and the principle of compatibility between crime and punishment,but also with China’s criminal legislation system is not harmonious.Therefore,intentional or intentional-fault as a form of guilt of this crime is inappropriate,and the form of guilt of this crime should be negligence.From the theoretical point of view,on the one hand,the perpetrator’s state of mind should be used as the criterion for determining the form of guilt of causing a Class A infectious disease or taking preventive and control measures against a Class A infectious disease to spread or be in serious danger of spreading,and the perpetrator should have the state of mind to avoid the occurrence of this result;on the other hand,the theory of exoneration from punishment is reasonable,and the lighter statutory penalty for this crime indicates that this crime should be a crime of negligence.From the perspective of judicial application,the recognition of this crime as a crime of negligence can also deal with the various situations that may arise in practice.In addition,the views that the negligence theory has been challenged,such as violation of legal provisions,inability to deal with intentional offenders,inability to achieve distinction between crimes,expansion of the scope of punishment,and inability to deal with joint crimes,are not valid.