In Japanese criminal law theory, violation of moral obligation is regarded as one of the situations that constitute a crime, and violation of moral obligation may constitute a crime. On October 3rd, 2065438+0165438/KLOC-0, Jiang Ge, a student studying in China, was killed in Tokyo, which inspired China people's morality. More than one million people petitioned for this case. But whether Liu Xin should bear the responsibility remains to be sorted out. ?
1.？ To clarify Liu Xin's criminal responsibility in the case review, we must first clarify the facts of the case. The China Journal quoted the Japanese news network as saying that when Liu Xin and Jiang Ge returned to the apartment where they lived together, "Chen Shifeng and others were found at the door of the apartment building, so the three men had an argument. Jiangge asked Liu Xinxian to go back to his room and talk to Chen Shifeng alone outside. Chen Shifeng pulled out the knife he carried with him and stabbed Jiangge in the neck and chest, causing Jiangge to bleed to death. " . ? Liu Xin said in an interview (outside the apartment where Jiangge was killed) that he admitted that he had something to do with Jiangge's death, but he didn't lock the door at that time. In addition, Liu Xin said he didn't hear Jiangge's cry for help. However, Xu Jingbo, who read the case file, said that in the whole case, "especially in the process of Jiang Ge's murder, Liu Xin bears great responsibility." Therefore, the author doubts that Liu Xin didn't hear Jiangge's call for help and didn't close the door. Because the Japanese police have not disclosed the complete case, this paper only makes a hypothetical analysis based on the above situation. Does Liu Xin have the obligation to help Jiang for Liu Xin, and does Liu Xin have the obligation to help? The answer to this question determines whether Liu Xin should bear criminal responsibility.
2.？ At present, there are three main views on Liu Xin's rescue obligation:? 0 1 ? Liu Xin only bears moral obligation to Jiangge, but not legal obligation. The legal obligation to rescue comes from the clear provisions of the law (jurisprudence), and if the law does not clearly stipulate, it will not bear the obligation. So Liu Xin has no legal obligation to help Jiangge. However, "I didn't kill Boren, but Boren died because of me". Although there is no direct causal relationship between Jiangge's death and Liu Xin, it is morally reprehensible. 02 ? Liu Xin bears civil legal responsibility for Jiangge, but not criminal legal responsibility. The paper pushes the article "Jurist talks about Jiangge case: Is the law really powerless in the face of indifference?" The author thinks that the current evidence can't identify Liu Xin's criminal responsibility, but he can claim compensation from Liu Xin in civil. 03 ? Liu Xin has the legal obligation to help Jiangge. Those who hold the view that helping Jiangge but not helping Jiangge is a criminal offence think that Liu Xin's behavior puts Jiangge in danger. As the first act is one of the sources of legal obligation to help, Liu Xin has a legal obligation to help Jiangge. If he should help but doesn't, he should bear corresponding criminal responsibility. ?
3.？ Analysis of Criminal Responsibility Liu Xin does not constitute a crime. As far as the criminal part is concerned, at present, it cannot be determined that Liu Xin has the legal obligation to help Jiangge, and it is difficult to determine Liu Xin's criminal responsibility. First of all, the murderer in this case is Chen Shifeng. Liu Xin didn't do anything positive, so Liu Xin can't bear criminal responsibility for his actions. So, did Xin commit an omission? If the omission constitutes a crime, it means that the actor has violated the provisions of the law and refused to perform the legal obligation of assistance. That is, the crime of omission is based on the legal obligation of assistance, and no legal obligation does not constitute a crime.
4.？ Our country's law does not clearly stipulate the obligation source of the crime of omission, but according to the general theory of criminal law, there are three kinds of obligation sources of the crime of omission: one is the positive obligation stipulated by law, such as the mother's obligation to support her minor children; ? Second, professional obligations, such as the rescue obligations of police and firefighters; ? Third, obligations arising from legal acts, such as obligations arising from signing contracts; ? The fourth is the obligation caused by the antecedent behavior.
?
Summary: As far as Jiangge case is concerned, Jiangge and Liu Xin are friends, and Liu Xin is not an employee of a specific occupation, so the first and second obligations do not apply; Jiangge did not have any agreement with Liu Xin, so it did not meet the third obligation; The only thing that Liu Xin can undertake is the fourth kind, that is, the obligation arising from the antecedent act. ?