On June 65438+ 10/0, the People's Court of Chengyang District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province made a first-instance judgment on the dispute over the right to life between the plaintiff Jiang Qiulian and the defendant Liu Nuanxi (formerly known as Liu Xin). Liu Nuanxi was sentenced to compensate the plaintiff Jiang Qiulian for various economic losses of 496,000 yuan and mental damages of 200,000 yuan, and bear all the acceptance fees of this case.
The court found that Liu Xin failed to inform and remind Jiangge truthfully, and when faced with the imminent danger of Chen Shifeng's illegal infringement, he blocked Jiangge from his residence for self-protection and ignored the life safety of others, resulting in his death, which was obviously wrong and should bear corresponding civil liability for compensation.
# Why hasn't Liu Xin been investigated for criminal responsibility # # Criminal lawyer # # Beijing criminal lawyer # # Criminal defense lawyer #
As soon as this judgment came out, the Jiangge case was settled-Chen Shifeng was sentenced to 20 years in prison by the Tokyo District Court for threatening murder, and Liu Xin was sentenced to 699,000 yuan for obvious fault. So, why hasn't Liu Xin been investigated for criminal responsibility?
Legal analysis 1: Liu Xin does not constitute the crime of Chen Shifeng.
In the theory of criminal law, the following three points need to be met to constitute the same crime:
1, * * * The main requirement of the same crime is that there must be more than two people.
2. * * * The subjective element of the same crime is that there must be * * * the same criminal intent.
3. The objective requirement of * * * and crime is that there must be * * * and criminal behavior.
In this case, after Liu Xin and Chen Shifeng broke up, Chen Shifeng harassed Liu Xin by intimidation, coercion and stalking. Thus, Chen Shifeng's subjective intention of preparing knives and premeditated murder should be to kill Liu Xin, and it is impossible for the two sides to reach an understanding. Secondly, when Chen Shifeng had an argument with Jiangge, Liu Xin had fled into the house and locked the door. It is impossible for Chen Shifeng to achieve the same criminal intent for his temporarily changed killing target.
Admittedly, Liu Xin's behavior of locking the door violated the moral feelings of a rational and kind person, but objectively it didn't help Chen Shifeng kill people, and it didn't belong to the crime of * * *, and Liu Xin didn't constitute Chen Shifeng's crime of * * *.
Analysis 2: Liu Xin does not constitute the crime of indirect intentional homicide by omission.
The establishment of the crime of intentional homicide by omission requires three special conditions:
First, the actor has the obligation to act. Like other crimes of omission, the first condition for the establishment of the crime of intentional homicide by omission is the existence of obligations. This kind of obligation includes the obligation stipulated by law, the obligation required by position or business, the obligation caused by legal act and the obligation caused by prior act.
Second, the actor has the possibility of fulfilling his obligations, that is, the actor has the ability to prevent others from dying. Judging whether the actor has the possibility to perform his obligations should be based on the objective environment at that time and the actor's own ability.
Third, there is a causal relationship between the behavior of not performing obligations, that is, inaction, and the death result of others. In other words, if the actor fulfills his obligation as an act, he can avoid the death of others. It should be pointed out that the establishment of the crime of intentional homicide by omission must meet the above three conditions, but not all deaths caused by omission should be convicted and punished for intentional homicide.
In this case, whether Liu Xin locked the door for the first time constitutes a preventive obligation against Jiangge's murder still needs to be analyzed in combination with the case file materials, but even under the ability to constitute a preventive obligation, Liu Xin also lacks the preventive ability, and there is also a lack of causal relationship between the door-locking behavior and Jiangge's murder result (that is, Liu Xin did not lock the door, which may not necessarily avoid the death result).
Legal Analysis III: Liu Xin does not constitute the crime of negligent death.
The crime of causing death by negligence refers to the act that the actor thinks that the death of others can be avoided because he negligently did not foresee or has foreseen it, thus depriving others of their right to life.
In this case, Liu Xin's act of locking the door is not the cause of Jiangge's death, which does not conform to the item "the actor must carry out the act of negligent death" in the crime of negligent death, so it does not constitute the crime of negligent death.
Criminal law is a serious law and the ultimate means to punish crimes and protect people, but it should never be the only constraint in our hearts. It is understandable that Liu Xin panicked when facing Chen Shifeng's bayonet, but she ignored Jiangge's life safety and kept the rescuer out of the door, leaving him to fend for himself, which broke the law.
As the presiding judge wrote in the judgment, helping the poor is the traditional virtue of the Chinese nation, and honesty and friendship are the important contents of socialist core values. Judicial decisions should guard the bottom line of social morality, carry forward benevolence and morality, and guide the whole society to respect morality and be good. Based on the facts of the case, we can't restrain her with criminal law, but she is not only facing civil compensation of nearly 700,000 yuan, but also a moral trial that will stay in her heart for a long time.