2. Those who cause death through negligence only need to bear very light criminal liability and appropriate financial compensation.
3. Even if the sentence can be suspended, the family of the deceased will not pursue the case, and it can be resolved quickly.
4. Family members should be allowed to visit, and you can consult a professional lawyer!
Reference: Sourced from Baidu Know
The crime of negligent death is an act that negligently causes death. Criteria for the identification of the crime of negligence causing death:
(1) The boundary between negligence and accidents in the crime of negligence causing death
The two **** have the same points:< /p>
1. Objectively, the perpetrator’s actions resulted in the death of others:
2. Subjectively, the perpetrator did not foresee the occurrence of such a result.
The key to distinguishing the two is to find out whether the perpetrator should have foreseen the occurrence of death under the circumstances. If he should have foreseen it, but failed to do so due to negligence, the crime of negligent death shall be established. . If death occurs due to unforeseen reasons, it is an accident under criminal law, and the perpetrator is not criminally responsible.
(2) The boundary between this crime and other negligent crimes stipulated in this law causing death by negligence
Other crimes stipulated in this law also include cases of death caused by negligence, only As far as the perpetrator's subjective will and behavioral results are concerned, it fully meets the conditions for the crime of negligence causing death. However, due to the particularity of the subject elements, the particularity of the criminal environment or the particularity of the criminal means, especially other objects violated by this crime are more prominent and the consequences are more serious, this law stipulates other crimes separately and will The simultaneous infringement of the right to life of others by this crime is stipulated as one of the circumstances, and several crimes shall be punished concurrently. Therefore, this article stipulates that "if this law provides otherwise, the provisions shall prevail." This shows that this law adopts the general principle that special provisions are superior to ordinary provisions for certain negligent crimes that result in death. If there are special provisions, the punishment shall be in accordance with the special provisions. This Law provides otherwise, such as the crime of negligent death among the crimes of fire, negligent drowning, negligent explosion, and negligent poisoning as stipulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 115 of this Law; Article 130 The crime of negligence causing death among the crimes of traffic accidents stipulated in Article 3; the crime of negligent destruction of vehicles, etc. causing death under Article 119; the crime of negligence causing death among the crimes of dangerous goods stipulated in Article 136 Crimes of causing death; and other crimes involving death provided by law. (Crimes causing death, etc. Generally speaking, the social harm of a crime of negligence specifically stipulated in this law that includes the result of causing death is the same as or greater than the crime of ordinary negligence causing death. Therefore, regardless of From a legal perspective or from the legislative intent of the legislators, the imposition of equal or heavier penalties for special crimes is clearly reflected in the provisions of this law, which reflects that our country's criminal law has always adhered to the principle of being consistent with the crime and punishment in Article 5 of this law. It is conducive to preventing crime and effectively protecting the personal rights of citizens and the safety of major public and private property.
(3) The boundary between this crime and the crime of intentional homicide
According to judicial practice, distinguish between negligence. For the crime of death and intentional homicide, we should mainly pay attention to the following issues:
1. Overconfidence in negligence causing death and indirect intentional homicide
Overconfidence in negligence causing death , refers to the fact that the actor has foreseen the possible consequences of his actions, but can avoid the death of others by relying on a certain degree of self-confidence, such as the actor's own skills, experience, knowledge, physical strength, etc. Indirect intentional homicide refers to the fact that the perpetrator is aware of his own behavior because of factors such as ability, other people's behavioral precautions, objective conditions or favorable factors of natural forces, etc., which leads to the belief that the result of death of others will not occur. The result of the death of another person may occur, but the attitude of laissez-faire and deliberate indulgence towards the occurrence of this result leads to the death of another person. The same thing between overconfidence in negligence causing death and indirect intentional homicide is that: both occur to the victim The result of death; the actor knows that his behavior may result in the death of others, and does not want this result to happen. The significant difference between the two is: first, in terms of cognitive factors, the subjective estimation of the result of death of others. different.
Although both of them foresee that their actions may cause the death of others, in indirect intentional homicide, the perpetrator does not have a wrong understanding or estimate of the possibility of turning into reality. Therefore, when the possibility of turning into reality, that is, the death of others, occurs, , there is no error between the actor's subjective understanding and the objective result, and the subjectivity and objectivity are consistent; and for the overconfident negligence causing death, the actor subjectively believes that due to his own background, ability, technology, experience and some external conditions The restriction, when performing the act, can avoid the death of others, that is... e., the understanding of the possibility of transforming the objective facts into reality is wrong, and in the case of the death of others, the subjectivity and objectivity are inconsistent. Second, there are important differences in the volitional factor. Although the perpetrators of overconfidence in negligence causing death and indirect intentional homicide do not want others to die, upon in-depth examination, there is a clear difference in their attitudes towards the outcome of others' death. The crime of indirect intentional homicide does not want the death of others to occur, but does not object to the death of others, but allows it to happen. Overconfidence in the crime of negligent death means that the perpetrator not only does not want the death of others to occur, but also does not allow this outcome to occur, but hopes that this outcome will not occur and hopes to avoid this outcome, that is, to exclude , object to the occurrence of the death of others. When foreseeing that the death of others may occur, the perpetrator still believes that the harmful consequences can be avoided, and therefore commits the act.
2. Manslaughter and "manslaughter" intentional homicide
The constitution of the crime of manslaughter requires the perpetrator to have a negligent mental attitude towards the death of the victim caused by the behavior. In judicial practice, the crime of intentional homicide should not be punished as an act that causes death due to negligence other than the "target" (i.e., the person's pursuit of killing) due to a wrong strike.
3. Qualification of death caused by omission
Not only can the crime of intentional homicide be established if omission causes death, but it can also be established as the crime of negligence causing death. The key to distinguishing the two is whether the actor has an intentional state of mind regarding the death of others due to his own inaction, including direct intention and indirect intention. In judicial practice, special attention should be paid to the situation where the actor has previously caused the danger of death of others through carelessness or negligence, and the actor could have rescued others but failed to do so, and allowed the death of others to occur. The actor should not be characterized as The crime of manslaughter cannot be deemed as an accident and the perpetrator is not guilty. Instead, the crime of indirect intentional homicide should be investigated for criminal responsibility. Secondly, from the objective aspect of the crime, because the defendant’s harmful behavior caused a dangerous state in which the victim may die, the defendant has a specific obligation to prevent such harmful consequences from occurring. However, based on the above psychological factors, he not only failed to take any measures Active rescue measures were taken, and the victim remained silent or even walked away, resulting in the death of the victim due to delayed rescue time. 4. After a person's death is caused by negligence, if the perpetrator mistook the body for a living person and "killed" it to silence him in order to avoid liability, he should not only be punished with the crime of negligence causing death or intentional homicide, but should be punished with the crime of negligence causing death. The crime of death and intentional homicide (the target cannot be established as an attempt) are convicted, and several crimes are punished together; (4) Two or more persons are criminally liable for the death of others due to the same negligent act. Determination of crime
Article 25, Paragraph 2 of this Law clearly stipulates: "If two or more persons commit the same crime of negligence, they shall bear criminal responsibility instead of committing the crime of crime." "Therefore, the following points should be taken into consideration when determining the criminal liability of two or more persons who cause death due to the same negligent act:
Divide the liability of each negligent perpetrator. Since there is no crime of common negligence, there is no such thing as a principal or an accomplice. If several negligent actors cause the death of another person by committing a single negligent act, the causal relationship between the negligent act and the death result should be determined and based on this Determine the respective responsibilities of those who should bear criminal responsibility. To determine the liability of each negligent actor, two principles must be followed: First, partial liability. Since the interaction of the negligent actor's actions resulted in the death of another person, the negligent actor cannot be required to bear full responsibility. The principle of commensurate liability and punishment requires that the sum of the criminal liability for each negligent act must correspond to the criminal liability for causing the death of others. Therefore, each negligent actor can only bear part of the responsibility for causing the death of others. Second, the principle of responsibility sharing.
From an objective reality point of view, the role played by the negligent actor in the death of others will not be exactly the same. Therefore, there must be the issue of different criminal responsibilities for harmful results, which is also a requirement of the principle of proportionality of crime and punishment. Since there are no principal or accessory issues in negligent crimes, the key to correctly determining criminal liability is the role of the negligent perpetrator. Judicial personnel must objectively determine the relevant facts of the case in order to ensure that the crime and punishment are appropriate.
(5) Behavior that transforms negligence causing death into intentional homicide
1. The perpetrator's negligence causes serious injury, and objectively the victim has reached the point where it is impossible to save and death is inevitable. Because the perpetrator mistakenly believed that he only caused serious injuries and escaped in order to evade responsibility, in this case, the perpetrator has the obligation to provide emergency rescue based on his negligent behavior. If the rescue is timely, the victim will still be saved, although the victim will still die. , the perpetrator’s behavior is a crime of negligence causing death. The perpetrator deliberately evaded the obligation to rescue and subjectively allowed the death of the victim to occur. Therefore, the perpetrator's subjective mentality and objective behavior have transformed from the crime of negligence causing death to the crime of indirect intentional homicide, and he should be convicted and punished for the crime of indirect intentional homicide.
2. The perpetrator’s negligent behavior has caused the death of the victim. He only believed that the victim was seriously injured, and because he was afraid that the victim would later reveal his crime, he deliberately committed the act of killing the deceased victim. . In this case, the perpetrator's misunderstanding of the target did not affect the constitution of the crime of intentional homicide subsequently committed, and he should be convicted and punished for the crime of intentional homicide.
Attachment: Sentencing standards for the crime of negligent causing death
Whoever commits this crime shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; if the circumstances are relatively minor, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or If this law provides otherwise, severe punishment shall be imposed.