As one of the contents of four elements crime objective factors to constitute one of the (harmful behavior, damage results, causality in criminal law, the time, place and method of behavior), one of the objective basis as a decision whether the perpetrator of criminal responsibility in criminal law, critical judgment of causality. However, because each person's values, moral, thinking and methods of different factors, the criminal law causal relationship has been controversial.

I think our jurisprudence is the problem to be a part of objective elements of crime, but involves subjective aspects of a lot, there are some months the birds hazy. It is difficult to avoid. We also shallow. I dare not talk, here is just people down, combing her learning.

　　

Whether there is a causal relationship between criminal law on how to judge a behavior and harm result:

 

The first step: the conditions to determine whether there is causal relationship of fact behavior and results;

(conditions: all actions as long as the logic is the occurrence conditions of the conditions, there is the necessary condition of logic,"Without the former, have no who", reason is the result. See enclosure:Professor of Renmin University of China Law SchoolChen Xingliang "causality in criminal law")

The second step: the eclectic causal relationship to determine whether there is causal relationship of law.

(a causal relationshipBehavior generally lead to result the reason whether can foresee the fact of your own behavior, and although most people cannot see but one can foreseeThe special facts as the basis, to determine the causal relationship between the law there is No. See the accompanying text: Chen Xingliang "causality in criminal law")

　　

Test knife:

　　2007 cowsPaper two　　

1 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

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

 

Analytical:

A in accordance with the terms, but a chapter wallet carelessly fall from the body, a not foreseen, do not accord with quite, Pass

    (there is no causal relationship, can not be used to evaluate a robbery, robbery and the crimeOccupation (?)The Sui)

B in accordance with the terms, but the doctor has major mistakes, B cannot be foreseen, do not correspond, option said no, right

    (on the other saidThe factors involved in theInterrupt the causal)

C in accordance with the terms, but a failed to put down the railing, C not foreseen, do not accord with quite, Pass

(on the other said: C behavior far from making a can not be timely put down the railing, does not have the direct cause, by chatting to be aMy choice)

D in accordance with the terms, but a high speeding driving, hit the car to Li Wang Ding, C not foreseen, do not accord with quite, Pass

(The factors involved in the)

　　2006 cowsPaper two

2 about causation, which one of the following options is wrong?

A. a intentional 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 to C there, a see 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

 

Analysis: A meet the conditions, but the hospital fire, a not foreseen, do not correspond, right

B in accordance with the terms, but will seriously shock B and threw it into the lake, causing B drowning, a should think not, correspond, right

C in accordance with the terms, but a heart attack caused by B, C can foresee, combined with the actual, and not a causal relationship cannot be determined

D in accordance with the terms, but a to know B put 5 mg poison case added 5 mg of poison, a pair of their own behavior induced b death results not only are predicted, and certainly, with said, there is no causal relationship between the options conclusion a poison and C of the death is apparently wrong

Compared to C and D, D wrong more ruthless, choose D

 

Question: the D option in conclusion to whether there is a causal relationship between B and C poison death? 　

 

Attached: causality of criminal law on "Chen Xingliang"
One, the concept of causality

The causal relationship is decided and be decided, cause and be caused between the refers to the behavior and results. In criminal law, it will be a result attributed to someone, whether there is a causal relationship between the criminal law of often need to identify the behavior and results. Therefore, the causal relationship has important significance in the body of the crime.

Especially in the offense, no causal relationship has no criminal liability. Of course, the causal relationship is not like behavior and result that is one of the key elements of constitution of crime. Because the behavior and the result is a fact, and the causal relationship between the two is a nature relationship. Therefore, should not be a causal relationship and behavior, results in parallel as elements. Of course, this is not to deny the causal relationship in the crime of status.

Causality is a kind of objective relation of behavior and result, this link is fact nature. However, the causality in criminal law is not only a matter of fact, the more important is a legal problem. In this case, to the causality in criminal law, should be examined from the facts and the law of these two aspects.

Causality in fact, exists as a fact of nature, in our traditional theory of criminal law, the causality in philosophy under the guidance of the causal relationship of fact, for in-depth study. However, due to the lack of research on the legal causation from the value level, so that the theory of causality entanglement in the necessity and contingency, such as some philosophical issues, has caused considerable confusion. I have proposed causal relationship between fact and value judgment is the idea of unity, as the causal behavior facts only after the value judgment can be transformed into causality of crime. Therefore, to the causality in criminal law, as a matter of fact to understand difficult to complete the causality plays in the crime of the mission. Based on the factual causation, also should be investigated from the perspective of criminal law, make it really become the objective due to.

Two, the causal relationship of fact

How to determine the causality in fact, in Anglo American criminal law theory is in accordance with the "but-for" formula to express, therefore, cause in fact very widely. In the civil law theory is the introduction of two philosophy the conditions and reasons that thought, whether to distinguish between the conditions and reasons and how to divide the problem into its theory, hence the conditions and reasons that argument.

Conditions, also known as the same value, this causal relationship is based on the logic of the position, as long as that all behavior is logically result condition, reason is the result. This says that in between the behavior and the results, if there exists inevitable relation between conditional logic, namely "without the former, is no" (Conditio Sine Qua Non, referred to as C.S.Q.N formula), causality is present criminal law. The C.S.Q.N formula on the condition that is a kind of generalized the notion of causality, causal in nature with physical, causal relationship will be directly applied to the criminal law, the objective foundation for criminal responsibility is too wide. Therefore, advocated the conditions that scholars restricted range, and puts forward the causal relationship is interrupted to say. The said that, when intentional act between behavior and result in third time, can interrupt the causal relationship between the original. Since then, the cause of the interrupt and extended to natural facts and negligence. However, this view still adhere to test causal relationships from a physical point of the position of defect, failed to overcome conditions fundamentally.

Reason, also called the causes and conditions that distinguish the differences, the causes and conditions, the results will occur with many conditions are proposed, particularly powerful and important conditions, as for the cause of the occurrence of other conditions, do not think the results with force and called condition (simple conditions). The reason is as restrictive conditions said improper expansion of criminal liability arising from the theory, it is also known as the limit conditions. 

So, how to distinguish the condition and reason? For this problem due to the understanding of standard is different, also produce a variety of theories, mainly in the following: (1) will cause (or necessary conditions). This says that under various conditions by consequence, conditions for the behavior only indispensable, necessary, and that's why criminal law, the rest is simple conditions. (2) direct cause (or the nearest cause). This said that in a number of conditions caused result, directly results conditional behavior is the reason of the criminal law, the rest of the simple conditions. (3) the most important reason to say (or the most powerful conditions). This says that, in a number of conditions caused result, for the most conditional behavior effect, is the cause of criminal law, the rest of the simple conditions. (4) decided to say (or advantages said). This said that in the results before the appearance of positive results, cause occurrence conditions (as fruit conditions) and negative to prevent the result condition (prevent conditions) is in the balance. Later, because of the conditions prevailed, suppress anti fruit condition, cause the occurrence of. Therefore, those who occupy the advantage and the behavior condition occurs, which is the reason of the criminal law, the rest of the simple conditions. On the reasons for the said restrictions on conditions objectively, to a certain extent, narrowing the scope of causality. Of course, how to distinguish between causes and conditions is still a problem to be in suspense.

Conditions compared with reason, reason is limited conditions, so that the condition of establish causality range is larger than that of reason. For conditions that criticism is just this, think it will be unlimited expansion of the scope of criminal responsibility. If only from the causality in fact consider, this criticism seems plausible, but if taking into account the conditions just as the law of cause and effect relationship provides basis in fact, it is not a direct cause of criminal responsibility, this criticism is biased. As for the reason, try to limit conditions, narrowing the scope of criminal responsibility, so that between the behavior and result of causality in criminal law standard, so it has rationality. But the reason that operational standard does not provide the conditions of distinction between the cause. More important is the fact that it is still in the range of criminal law of causality, so can not solve the problem of causality in criminal law science.

The condition that is a kind of causality in fact and reason, they were provided based on facts from this standpoint is the law of cause and effect relationship, the continental law countries in criminal law theory usually mining conditions. Causal relationship as a kind of legal causation, is built on the condition that the causal relationship between the above. In this sense, we can not be causal relationship as the negative conditions, but the causal relationship of fact into legal causality.

Three, legal causation

Causal relationship of law is based on the factual causation, determine the causality in criminal law. Legal causation is equivalent to the standard of judgment, the causal relationship forming theory. Causal relationship is in accordance with the conditions that the point of view, behavior and the results are believed to have a causal relationship, to put all the knowledge of human experience as reference, some reasons caused as a result of behavior based on the fact, most people think that it is quite time, causality in criminal law is important, other than the equivalent range the results that there is no importance to the criminal law, shall not be considered. The core problem of causal relationship is considerable. Equivalent is a judgment of causality in criminal law laws set the standard, which is transformed from the causality in fact is the key to the law of cause and effect relationship.

So, how to identify the equivalent causality? In this regard, there are three kinds of views in theory of criminal law

(1) subjective causal relationship. This said, should be to conduct in the behavior know or can understand truth as the standard, whether there is criminal law to determine the causal relationship between the behavior and results. That is to say, the general behavior of human can recognize in acts of causal facts, regardless of the general public is able to recognize, there is that criminal law relationship. Visible, subjective causal relationship, is entirely subjective cognition ability to act as the standard, to determine whether there is causality in criminal law.

(2) the causal relationship. This said, the existence of causality in criminal law, the judge shall be made to the general public on the behavior and behavior of what happened after the can anticipate as the standard, to make an objective judgment. All people have foreseen or could foresee a behavior will cause a result, the view that the existence of causal relationship between behavior and the behavior person, otherwise, causality in criminal law does not exist.

(3) a causal relationship. This says to act generally foresaw or may foresee the fact, while ordinary people can not foresee and behavior known special facts or understood as the basis, to judge whether there is causality in criminal law. The relationship between the behavior and result that ethical general people can expect on the conditions, regardless of whether the actor foresight, have thought that there is causality in criminal law; those who foresee for ordinary people can not, but the actor can foresee, also believes that there is causality in criminal law.

In judging standard above three kinds of correspondence, in the behavior of human cognition and social cognition is generally consistent, subjective and objective said no difference. The difference is that: the social common people can understand the behavior of people can not understand, or society in general can not understand the behavior of people can recognize situation, according to general standards or according to the standard of behavior? Subjective that behavior standard, but the objective said that should be in accordance with the ordinary people. Compromise used the general standard, namely the social common people can understand the behavior of people can not understand the situation, that the causal relationship in the criminal law. But in society in general can not understand and behavior person can recognize situation, and according to the standard of behavior, that the causal relationship in the criminal law.

Generally, compromise is appropriate. In order to obtain a general position.