On causality in criminal law

 Causality in criminal law is a cause and be caused the objective relationship between behavior and harmful results.

 We discuss not causality in the specific crime of doing here, criminal causality between the act of simply how to identify the behavior and harmful results.

   In this process, subject to the influence of "crime is a behavior", it will exclude all non behavioral reasons through acts of elements, so that it does not enter into judgment scope causality, because doing so is superfluous. So, the causation of criminal law is the role of specific harm result is caused by a specific behavior, and to use the results to this behavior, and other related acts are excluded by refusing to carry out the responsibility judgment on it -- to determine the evaluation object of the criminal law. Of course, the harm behavior caused this particular harm results would lead to human behavior responsibility, there is sin existence judgment as limit. (the following will not discuss the existence of a sin or not.)

Understanding of causality in criminal law, we should pay attention to the following points:

1, the objectivity of causality. Mean is not affected by the subjective factors can foresee. But it should be noted that the "unpredictable" and the following talks and causality is broken "can not be the first person to see the difference between rationality".

   2, the relative causality.

   The time sequence of 3, causal relationship. That is because the first fruit after. But here should pay attention to this result must be really has occurred, but not possible or inevitable but hasn't happened; the main attention and causal relationship can not be hypothetical linked to solve problems.

   4, the complexity of causal relationship.The causation in law is always causal caseIn every case, and always in a haphazard manner shown, accidental although is inevitable, but can not be attributed to the inevitable.

   Rule 5, causality (don't know)

    Identifying the causal theory of many, our previous general divided causality and causal relationship. The following only say I think practical conditions.

   In accordance with the conditions, between the behavior and the results, as long as there is "not the former it doesn't matter which" the conditions, I think on causality in criminal law. That is to say, the specific results occurred, can not imagine all the conditions which do not exist, are the cause of the. If an act or a fact, can imagine it doesn't exist, and the specific results may occur, the behavior or the fact that non condition that causes the result. Obviously, because of the conditions that depend on the condition involves the scope wide, if thoroughly insist that the words, may cause the punishment scope expansion effect. To overcome this drawback, the world is a restrictive theory according to their specific circumstances: causal relationship, legal causation theory, the objective imputation theory and the causality interrupt theory. The former three are not that (I wonder), key interrupt theory, this to our Scott, judicial practice is very meaningful. Interrupt on the development process of causation in the intentional act, if the intervention of the third (and some that include negligent behavior, I think so) or a natural fact, so, the causal relationship between behavior and result will interrupt. Generally speaking, intervening factors include three types: third party intervention behavior, natural facts as well as the victim behavior. No matter what kind of interventions are required to conduct "not foreseen," rationality "is completely unpredictable and the behavior has nothing to do with" etc.. But the specific analysis of specific cases, generally according to the common sense, common sense, common sense can be foreseen, do not belong to the intervention of the above factors.

   We often encounter is a specific physiological, psychological or emotional state of the victim, the notice said and in front of the victim's behavior in comparison, but as long as the understanding behavior leads to the results of the exclusion of non behavioral factors, meaning it is again good but the understanding. And also because I'm not discussed here sin makes it relatively simple.

   In general, whether there is relationship between the condition of behavior and result, is usually easy to judge, but should also pay attention to the following points:

    Cut off 1, causal relationship. Cut off the so-called causality, is refers to the condition itself is cut off. In particular, the advance behavior of a result has not acted, post conditions unrelated causes the result. On this occasion, antecedent condition is not the result of. It is necessary to pay attention to, the causal relationship between them and the causal relationship between the interrupt is different, in the latter, antecedent conditions have begun to result the effect.

   The causality between the 2, assumed. Are as previously mentioned, a causal relationship cannot be assumed! (this is a different point of view, but I do not discuss, that is it.)

(Because ofThe key difference between cut fruit and the putative causal relations is, the initial behavior has been completed, just waiting for the result; while the latter assumes behavior has not yet occurred; the two can meet the causal relationship can not be assumed that)

   3, select one of the CO opetition (causality dual). The principle of this understanding is, for several conditions exist, if the removal of a conditional results will occur, remove all conditions result will not occur, there are conditions all the conditions and results. For example, a and B in the absence of conspiracy case, respectively, to a glass of wine C delivery reached a lethal dose of poison, and play a role in the same time (I don't know how to distinguish between who played a role in this time), C drink drunk death. The causal relationship between the behavior and result of the case B, all constitute the crime of intentional homicide crime.

   The causality between the 4, overlapping. More than two mutually independent behavior, occur alone cannot lead to results, but the combined results occurs, overlapping of causality. For example, a and B in the case of no conspiracy, (also)Were put in the lethal dose 50% poison to a glass C, two people to a lethal amount of overlap, C drink drunk death. In this case, it is generally thought that the relationship between behavior and result of condition B, all constitute the crime of intentional homicide crime. (this point of doubt)Constantly updated......

Reference: Chen Xingliang "criminal law", "Ruan Qilin case tutorial zhongfawang Scott class notes -- criminal law";

Connection: Liu Fengke

On causality in criminal law

The relationship between a cause harm behavior and harm results by. Research significance lies in: some results can be attributed to a certain behavior.

(a) the characteristics of criminal law causality

Characteristics: objectivity, relativity, order, regularity, complexity

Special: the specific range of 1 one-way function; 2;The development process of 3 specific (fraud, blackmail and impose exactions on crime, robbery: essence is the nature of behavior and results requirements).

[12] (2007 two papers first) of the criminal law causal relation judgment, which of the following statements are true? A. a robbery and assault a chapter, chapter one escape, a subsequent chase. A chapter in the escape from the wallet carelessly fall on the left, a lost wallet. The causal relationship between violence and obtain a property 

A burglary obtaining property, run away in panic, not careful will sleep on the floor of the baby trampled to death. A behavior whether to belong to the robbery causing death?

(two) identified the causation in law

1The traditional theory of criminal law. The view: causal relationship; accidental causation

2To condition based theory

Take the conditions, i.e.Between the behavior and the results there are not the former it doesn't matter the latter condition, the former is the reason for the latter;At the same time, we should adoptProhibition of retroactive theoryThat is, when an act or fact independent results occurs, it should be the liability on the behavior (or attributable to the fact), and cannot be traced back to a previous condition; in addition, do not rule out some special requirements for specific types of crime (such as on the aggregated consequential offense, the basic behavior and requirements the aggravated result has direct elements).

[13] (2007 two papers first) of the criminal law causal relation judgment, which of the following statements are true?

B．Ethyl on killing mean knifed Cheng, see Cheng after the injury is very painful, and deliver it to the hospital, but the doctor treatment there are significant errors, resulting in one death. B there is no causal relationship between behavior and the process of a death

C. C through a railway crossing is on duty, meet acquaintances a, then chat with, lead to a failed to put down the railing, the train will run over by huang. The causal relationship between C and Huang's death

D. Ding to kill Li Mou and hit the head, make it be mortally wounded, and 2 hours after death. In Li Mou begging, Ding drove them to hospital. 20 minutes later, a high driving trucks speeding, hit the Ding car induced Lee died on the spot. The causal relationship between Ding behavior and Li's death

First, the causal relationshipCut off. A homicidal intentionally to B things poison, play a role in shoot and kill poison before C B. There is no causal relationship between behavior and B a death.

Second, the putative causal relationship. Is that although a behavior lead to result, but even without the behavior, the other will produce the same results. At this time still should be a causal relationship exists between certain. Such as the death of his father from the bailiff hand grabbed the gun, shot himself to death to kill, at this time, it should be that the causal relationship.

Third, the obligatory alternative actions. German truck killed drunk people cycling case.

Fourth, the causal relationship between double, also known as an alternative joinder. At this time, several behavior leads to a result to the case, if the removal of a behavioral results will occur, the removal of all behavioral outcomes will not occur, all the behaviors are the results of the causes. Such as the AB two did not contact, at the same time to C shot, and hit the heart of death. If a and B does not discuss in advance, also launched a lethal poison to C cups.

Fifth, the causal relationship between overlapping. In this case, because there is no the former it doesn't matter, the latter condition so, should make sure both of the causal relationship between the results. Such as A and B does not discuss in advance,At the same timeTo C cups placed lethal dose 50% poison, then, a and B two people have to bear the criminal responsibility by death.If there has the obvious relation, it is possible to apply the prohibition of retroactive theory.

Sixth, sufficient condition can be replaced.Traveler desert investigation cases.

In the development of causality, if in the third act, the victim's behavior or special natural fact, should lead to the possibility of intervention, happen to the size of the case, the abnormal size by examining the behavior, whether there is a causal relationship between judgment and behavior and the results (whether there is prohibited retroactive cases).

     3The causal relationship of the nonfeasance crime.

   As the crime of conditional relation formula is: if you do not have this behavior, the result will not occur, so the behavior is the reason; not as crime conditional relation formula is: if people act to fulfill their obligations, the result will not occur, so it does not fulfill the duty is the reason. The two have differences in form, but the causal relationship of the content is the same.

         4Causation and criminal responsibility.

     [14] (2006 two papers of second questions) about causation, which one of the following options is wrong?

A.A deliberately hurt B and caused the injury, B was sent to the hospital. That night, the fire burned the hospital, B. There is no causal relationship between the harmful behavior and B a death

B.A homicidal intentionally to B violence, serious shock caused by B. I believe that B has died, to conceal Zuiji, ethylene and threw it into the lake, which was drowned. The causal relationship between homicide and B a death

C.A and B because of trivial dispute, to B chest like a thrust, which was a heart attack, died despite medical treatment. The causal relationship between behavior and B a death, whether to bear the criminal responsibility should be regarded a subjective on the set

D.A and B have a see of C, B to C food put in 5 mg and 5 mg of poison poison, know not to C death, hence in B unwittingly added 5 mg of poison, death by eating. 5 milligrams of poison a launch itself insufficient that C death, so there is no causal relationship between a poison and C of the death

[15](in 2003 two papers question forty-first) which of the following statements about the causation in law which is correct?

A．A desire to kill his girlfriend, the brake device one day set out to destroy the car. Girlfriend as drive out, 15 minutes after the case of a steep slope, will fall off a cliff and died. However, his girlfriend will the car off after 5 minutes, in case of flash floods, mudslides rushed down the mountain from the. There is no causal relationship between the occurrence of death and a murder

B．B to kill his enemies Su, in the cliff edge to cut 7 knives, the seriously injured coma. B that Su had died, and left. But Su he woke up, just took the two step that he fell down from the cliff. The causal relationship between damage behavior of Su's death and B

C．C to kill rival Zhao, Zhao to run for their lives. Zhao enemies he a had wanted to kill Zhao, accidentally see Zhao Huangbuzelu, in C has not yet arrived, namely to the shooting to death, zhao. There is no causal relationship between kill Zhao death and C

D．Ding a loaded pistol into his ex-wife clock a shelter, intent to kill the clock a. In the two set, Zhong Mou himself accidentally trigger was shot to death. The causal relationship between homicide clock death and ding ding on, even if a causal relationship exists between the error of cognition, but also constituted the crime of intentional homicide crime

That the criminal law causality

 SourceHttp://www.peixunwang.com/modules/article/637.html