Your honor:
As the attorney of the victim Tang, I think the cruel behavior of the defendant Jane has constituted the crime of intentional homicide by omission. The reason for this is the following：
1. The defendant, Jane, had no intention, committed the first act in the crime of omission, and had the legal obligation to carry out specific positive acts. According to the testimony of witness Wang and the registration of the court, it can be confirmed that Jane lived with Tang mercilessly in 1979 and got married in 1983. According to the requirements of the Marriage Law, husband and wife have the obligation to help each other. In civil, the obligation to help each other means that when the other party is found to be in danger, one of them must help. As early as June 65438+July 0984, Tang discovered a lump and abnormal secretion in the right breast. Because her husband, Jane, is a medical expert, Tang went to see her and Jane touched her mercilessly. According to his professional knowledge, (there is a certificate of the defendant Jane's ruthless work in the hospital and witnesses Yang Mosheng, Cai and the defendant,
Confirm that she has received training in internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology. ), she should be able to conclude that Tang may have breast cancer, but Jane has ruthlessly concealed the truth, saying that it's no big deal, just because women have endocrine disorders or mental stress. Later, Tang was going to the hospital. Jane said that she was a family doctor, and so was seeing other doctors. It was not until March 1986 that Tang went to the hospital for examination after he fell ill that he was diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. It can be seen that due to Jane's ruthless behavior of concealing her illness, her immature life and health rights and interests have been in danger. As a doctor, Jane is heartless and should undertake the obligation to eliminate the dangers that he can eliminate. In other words, as the husband of Tang, Jane has the obligation to prevent the damage when Tang is diagnosed with cancer.
2. The defendant Jane is ruthless and has the indirect intention of legal inaction and intentional homicide. Jane is heartless. As a doctor, she has long known that Tang has rheumatoid arthritis, but soon after she got married, she found a new lover and wanted to get rid of her marriage. After discovering that Tang's warm chest may have cancer, he did not provide Tang with the real condition, and also prevented Tang from going to the hospital to see a doctor, which made Tang believe his words and lost the opportunity of timely diagnosis and treatment. At the end of 1985, Jane was ruthlessly engaged publicly, which made Tang suffer another mental blow. However, when Jane learned that her wife had stage III breast cancer, she only visited her once and ignored her, which led to the soup being replaced by a wheelchair and her life was at stake. In this case, the defendant Jane knew that the victim's life was at stake and had a legal obligation to care and help, but ignored this obligation and ignored Tang. This is a kind of indirect intention of illegally depriving others of their lives, which is harmful to society and has a causal relationship with the death consequences of the victim Tang in the criminal law.
To sum up, the defendant, Jane, subjectively had the indirect intention of letting Tang die with emotion, and objectively also showed negative inaction. Therefore, the cruel behavior of the defendant Jane has violated the criminal law of our country and constituted the crime of intentional homicide by omission, which should be severely punished according to law. Please judge clearly!
B: defense words
Chief Justice and Juror
First of all, I would like to express my sincere sympathy for the complainant's illness and misfortune.
As the second defender of the defendant, I will not repeat the views and opinions of the first defender.
I think the trial in court is enough to prove my client's innocence. Ask the court to make a verdict of not guilty.
According to the questions raised by the lawyer recognized by the plaintiff in court, I make the following defense for the defendant in this case.
The plaintiff is a successful woman with a university degree and studying abroad. She has been engaged in magazine work for a long time, and her information is smooth, well-informed, clear thinking and strong judgment are enough to prove that she has a full understanding of her illness. This is the first point.
Second, the plaintiff is a magazine worker, and her occupation is very important to the nature of the case. In today's extremely developed information industry, whenever you open or contact a media, you will generally have knowledge about health, especially about women's health, which is full of pages or spaces. Common sense about early prevention and judgment of female breast cancer is also the focus of various media reports. As a reporter's accuser, there is no reason not to know this. Therefore, it is obviously against common sense for the plaintiff to say that the illness worsened because of the defendant.
Thirdly, I personally think that the plaintiff accuses the defendant and holds a negative attitude towards the plaintiff's illness. But the crux of the problem lies in whether the plaintiff's illness is irreversible and whether there is a direct causal relationship with the defendant's inaction! Is it only the defendant's passive response that causes the plaintiff's illness to be delayed or even aggravated? I thought the answer was no! From July and August of 1984 to March of 1986, according to her understanding and judgment, the plaintiff should pay attention to the major changes in her body and take corresponding measures. There is no reason for her not to know anything about it. If it is really her negligence, it is also her own fault, then she will be responsible for the consequences of delaying treatment. In other words, the main responsibility lies with herself. The defendant's failure to fulfill the obligation of treatment is not enough to directly and comprehensively control the plaintiff's behavior and consciousness. It is also very important that she is completely in an open living environment, which shows that the defendant has not taken enough actions to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining relevant information, and the plaintiff is fully qualified and has enough time to make a correct judgment on his real situation. At the same time, the accuser is not only the editor-in-chief of the magazine, but also involves the content of the legal system. He also had contact with the author of Cancer Psychology. He knows far more about this kind of disease than others, enough to have a basic understanding of the degree of his illness, which is far from what the defendant can hide! However, she gave up, or she didn't want to know her illness, or she already knew! Then why not treat it as soon as possible? I don't think we can rule out that she has caused trouble to others. Because she had such a motive-she hated the defendant and abandoned her! She is the editor-in-chief of the magazine and knows some laws. She fully knows how to use the law to achieve her goal of revenge or injury to the defendant, thus obtaining psychological comfort.
In a word, this defender believes that the knowledge, experience, occupation and living environment of the accuser are enough to prove that he is capable, qualified and possible to make a correct judgment on his illness, and the defendant's negative behavior is not enough to directly delay her timely diagnosis and medical treatment. There is no legal causal relationship between the plaintiff's illness deterioration and even irreversibility and the defendant's negative behavior, which is not the only fundamental and important reason for medical delay. The most direct, fundamental and important reason for delaying treatment is that he sued this person himself, or because of his negligence or other hidden feelings, such as wanting to retaliate against the defendant.
Presiding judge, jurors, I ask you to pay full attention to the importance of the plaintiff's knowledge, experience, occupation, contact with cancer experts, living environment, the beginning time of disease discovery and the time of final diagnosis conclusion in this case before making a judgment.
I believe you will make the fairest judgment-that is, acquit my client!
C: This defender thinks that the plaintiff concealed his illness because he was afraid that his illness would be known by the defendant as a legal reason for divorce. Later, because the defendant made a promise, love gave birth to hate and sued the defendant. His trial confirmed this.
A: This agent does not deny that the plaintiff should be aware of his illness, and the facts of this case just prove that the plaintiff is really aware of his abnormal phenomenon, but at that time, he was still deeply in love with his husband, and his breasts were the secret parts of women, so the first thing he thought of was to ask his husband who was engaged in medicine, and he had doubts more than once, but they were all put off by his husband who absolutely believed in tenderness and ruthlessness at that time. How can you blame the plaintiff?
To say the least, if the complainant really knows his illness, he can't use his life to retaliate against the defendant, can he?
Therefore, the defense view of the defense does not conform to the objective facts, so please ask the judge to find out.
B: Entrusted by the defendant, this defender carefully consulted the relevant materials during the trial and seriously asked both the prosecution and the defense during the trial. The following defense opinions are put forward for the reference of the collegial panel of our hospital.
First, the plaintiff's illness has no causal relationship with my client.
(a) Any person's disease has its complicated causes, especially cancer and other diseases, but the control of cell division has been destroyed, which is one of its main causes. However, no doctor or expert in modern science and technology can cause cancer in human body, nor can he destroy the control of cell division, so from the point of view of the plaintiff in this case, it has nothing to do with my client. On the contrary, it is one of the side effects caused by accusing people of RA and taking steroids all the time.
(2) My client didn't make the illness worse. 1, the plaintiff has never met my client. Please pay attention to the fact that seeing a doctor and consulting are two different things. Judging from the evidence in this case, it is consultation, not medical treatment. Besides, my client is not qualified to see a doctor. 2. Because the symptoms of this disease are very similar to early r a, it is not normal for a patient with RA to have symptoms similar to RA? 3. Rheumatoid arthritis is prone to nodules all over the body, and the chest is no exception, and inflammation is prone to occur because of taking anti-immune drugs, and the complainant's family has no history of breast cancer. The complainant was hospitalized in Taipei Veterans General Hospital on May 1985. At that time, the resident doctor made a detailed examination and found a lump in the neck, but not in the chest.
Second, my client has no legal or agreed obligation to personally treat the plaintiff's illness.
(1) My client is not an oncologist, so he can't treat this disease, and he can't treat it himself.
(2) The medical records of Plaintiff 1985 in Taipei Rongzong Hospital in May. At that time, the resident made a detailed examination and found that there was a lump in his neck, but there was no lump in his chest. However, during the year of 1985, the two sides quarreled with each other, and the plaintiff did not ask for medical treatment.
Third, the plaintiff was ill entirely because of the plaintiff. Another defense lawyer has explained it in detail, so I won't repeat it.
There is no legal causal relationship between my client and the plaintiff's illness, and there is no obligation to ask the court to declare him innocent.
A: Excuse me, C, the law relies on evidence, not hypothesis. You said that the plaintiff knew about his illness and hid it for fear of divorce. Is there any evidence?
C: Agent:1At the end of 985, Jane's ruthless public engagement made Tang's spirit suffer a heavy blow, and her condition further deteriorated. After diagnosis, her survival rate is less than 0.50%. However, when Jane learned that her wife had stage III breast cancer, she only visited her once and ignored her, which led to the soup being replaced by a wheelchair and her life was at stake. In this case, the defendant Jane knew that the victim's life was at stake and had a legal obligation to care and help, but ignored this obligation and ignored Tang. This is a kind of indirect intention of illegally depriving others of their lives, which is harmful to society and has a causal relationship with the death consequences of the victim Tang in the criminal law.
This defender thinks: First, there is no evidence to prove the engagement. If there is, it is also moral, not legal. Second, the defendant in this case, Jane, knew that the victim's life was in danger and had a legal obligation to take care of and help, but ignored this obligation and ignored Tang. This is negative inaction, which shows the indirect intention of illegally depriving others of their lives. However, the defense lawyer believes that the defendant has no legal obligation to take care of his wife, but it is impossible to get it back from death. No matter how much the defendant loves his wife, he is helpless for the later stage of the disease.
............