Legal Identification On The Lethal Damage To The Idiosyncratic

It is of common occurrence that individual person was injured to death, of whichthe fatal cause was mainly relatived with his/her special physique. However, there is alack of uniform identification criteria for the case of such the kind, which makes theresult of the dissimilarity verdict in the same kind case happen occasionally in judicialpractice. Therefore, various conditions of such cases are desiderate to summarize andanalyze to make this kind case clear. Furthermore, it is beneficial to unify trialstandard, ie. avoiding different verdict results in consimili casu. So legel research onthis kind of case has practical value.Four typical cases were hackled in the form of case study in this paper, whichhad been met in judicial practice. And all the difficulties and altercations of existing insuch cases throughout trials were summarized. The main thing is whether there is acausal relationship between the doer’s behaviors and the victim’s death. In such cases,the doer’s behaviors were not the direct or main reason to cause the victim’s death,but induced invisible fatal diseases of the victim and led finally to his/her death. So itis critical to judge whether a causal relationship between the doer’s behaviors and thevictim’s death exists or not under this situation. If there exists the causal relationship,it doesn’t mean that the doer must be responsible for his/her acts. The doer’ssubjective attitude when the crime was committed should be taken into considerationwhen the crime was committed, which is a difficulty at the trial in such cases. Aboveall, victims have an invisible and fatal disease, such as hemophilia, heart disease etc.and in most cases, doers have no idea about this and maybe doers even don’t knowvictims before the crime. Besides, the doer’s behaviors don’t lead to seriousconsequences under normal conditions. Therefore, it is hard to establish the doer’ssubjective attitudes. Four real and similar cases had different final verdicts, which proved the lack ofuniform identification criteria. The different verdicts were made by different collegialpanels because of different theoretical standards, which is unfair on litigants. Themain purpose of this paper is to establish a uniform identification criterion in suchcases and contribute to the legal construction.