Knowing that in criminal law

The subjective elements of crime constitution is the subjective intention, i.e.KnowinglyYour behavior will cause socially dangerous consequences, and wishes or allows such results.

What is that? The criminal law is not clearly defined, according to the judicial interpretation and some scholars explain, knowing that knows or ought to know, must know is presumed to know. For presumed to know, is in general not clear evidence that the behavior people know, judging method of a suspect's subjective attitude. Whether should know your behavior will cause socially dangerous consequences, and hope or indulge the consequences, constitute the subjective elements of crime? This is further analysis.

"Should know"Itself shows an obligation, that judge subject objectively still think that this body of obligation in fact "don't know", was a rebuke to the obligations of the. Because since the obligation and no obligations, should bear the responsibility for the outstanding obligations. The nature of this responsibility by the obligations to nature, from the criminal law status of point of view, for acts not obligations of whether to use the penalty, is to see whether the criminal law clearly stipulates the crime suspect some obligations, such obligations if not criminal law shall not bear criminal responsibility. So the behavior of people only in violation of the criminal law to the duty of care is likely to bear criminal responsibility. Not the attention obligation administrative law or civil law with criminal law duty.

For violating the duty of criminal law, Is it right? Must constitute criminal subjective elements? That is Is it right? Should know the circumstances must constitute the subjective elements of crime? Knowing the specific meaning in criminal law, we must to analyze from the concept of intentional crime and negligent crime.KnowinglyYour behavior will cause socially dangerous consequences, and wishes or allows such consequences to occur, thus constituting a crime, is an intentional crime. Should have foreseen that his behavior may cause socially dangerous consequences, because negligence and do not foresee, or have already foreseen but trust can be avoided, so that the occurrence of this result, is a negligent crime.

The actor's subjective state of mind must be aimed at social harm, subjective aspect in order to investigate the behavior of accurate. The subjective aspect of the subject of the crime, in order to facilitate the judgment, for harm result has changed the situation, we will make the following classification on the subjective aspect:

(a) predicted behavior will have the social harmfulness: (1) hope that the occurrence of harmful results, direct intention (2) let harmful consequences, constitute indirect intent.

(two) predicted behavior may occur: (Social Harmfulness1) hope that the occurrence of harmful results, direct intention (2) let harmful consequences, constitute indirect intentional (3) believe can avoid, constitute negligence.

(three) no harm for predictable behavior, when should have foreseen and unforeseen because of carelessness, negligence crime subjective mentality; if not should be foreseen and unforeseen social harmfulness is the behavior should not be regulated by the criminal law.

The classification, the most difficult to determine the suspect's subjective state of mind is: to foresee the possible danger to the society their behavior should be foreseen and unforeseen. The two kind of mentality in the theory is relatively good distinction, but in practice it is difficult, but this distinction, but it is the distinction between crime and non crime.

The current judicial practice for knowing is often defined as know or should know the two kinds of circumstances, should know as a presumption that. Some of the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court and such provisions. To "know" go to definition subjective mentality, but for "should know" is defined as "knowing" would beg to differ. Judicial practice in the application "should know" subjective "knowingly", often because there is no evidence that the behavior people "know", a judicial determination method to presumption that the person who knowingly. This determination method is worthy of scrutiny. Here are some for "should know" the subjective state of mind:

(a) predicted behaviorProbablyWill: but (Social Harmfulness1) hope that the occurrence of harmful results, direct intention (2) let harmful consequences, constitute indirect intentional (3) believe can avoid, constitute negligence.

(two) did not foresee the harm, but should be anticipated due to negligence, not foreseen.

For the first kind of first, two case constitutes a crime, for the first third, second of the cases do not constitute a crime.

The subjective aspects of criminal law on the requirements inspection is the perpetrator of the consequences that social harmfulness of mind; rather than on the behavior mentality. Even the "should know" should not be presumed as "knowing", because only in fact foresaw the behavior may cause socially dangerous consequences of circumstances, may constitute a crime subjective intent, although "should know" but not "know" should not be a crime, although in fact "know" but trust can avoid should not constitute a crime.

So for the "should know" whether can be presumed that, should first see whether the actor violates the duty of care of the criminal law; second is to see whether in fact know behavior must or may cause socially dangerous consequences. Even the "should know" but "do not know" should not "knowingly".