| Recent years, see danger not to save events have occurred frequently, and the “YueYue incident " which occurred in2011in Guangzhou Foshan has aroused people’sattention, sparked public reflection on the social and moral status and discussion. Manypeople and scholars put forward the creation of "Indifference to Danger sin", with thelegal force to save the moral turpitude. But the questions, should the behavior seedanger not to save be criminalized, whether to apply the most severe criminal law topenalize it, whether can eliminate this kind of phenomenon from happening again, needto be comprehensive analyzed with the strict and responsible academic attitude.Therefore, this essay will demonstrate and analysis this issue from the three dimensionsinvolved over legal principle, criminal law and judicial practice, pointing out see dangernot to save should not be convicted, and further proposes regulatory measures outsidethe criminal law. This paper is divided into five major sections:The first part gives a definition of see danger not to save, clearing the followingargument object. We get the conception through studying the typical definition proposedby other scholars, based on analyzing the main factors of actor range, distress scenario,and subjective attitude one by one. See danger not to save is that, people withoutspecific duties or obligations, clearly aware of other people’s health and safety in theurgent dangerous situation, have the ability to rescue and there is no significant risk ofrelief on their own and third party, but not to conduct relief.The second part, from the legal point of view, demonstrates see danger not to savecan not be moral legalization. Through the rational analysis of moral legalization, weclear the lowest level of morality is the limits to moral legalization, there are bothadvantages and disadvantages of implementation, and enforce higher morality canhardly promote moral construction. Give help with others’ peril is not the bottommorality of the lowest level, and therefore should not be incorporated into the legalcategory. Even if it is forced into the crime law, it is also difficult to reach good wishesto enhance the social moral.The third part, from the perspective of the criminal code, explains criminalizationof see danger not to save is anachronistic and inconsistent with the theory. On the macrolevel, we should not blindly learn foreign or ancient. Because our country has neitherthe legislative requirement to suppress the individualist like west, nor the support of perfect social security. On the other hand, China today is the modern law society, whichpays more attention to human rights and freedom. On the micro level, criminalization ofsee danger not to save will be censured by the basic theory of criminal law, includingthe principle of necessity, qualitative and quantitative concept of crime, and Legalinterests against theory.The fourth part, from a practical point of view, analyzes judicial enforcementpredicament faced by criminalization of see danger not to save. First it will be difficultto apply, including it is hard to determine the subject of crime, clarify the subjectiveguilt and proof the fact of the case. In addition, the actual implementation will producenegative effect, making people avoid the rescue and lead to kinds of tragedy such asaggravating the injury due to no scientific assistance.The fifth part proposes regulatory measures outside the criminal law, which willeffectively regulate indifference to danger phenomenon. We conclude the factorsinfluencing help behavior include individual sense of responsibility, ability toemergency relief and positive recognition of the social and legal protection of society. Inview of these concerns factors, what we could do is to strengthen ourselves, improverescue skill, increase the relevant legislation, and improve social security system.Individuals and society work together to change the phenomenon of indifference todanger, promote the early return of good morality. |
PDF Full Text Request