Doctrinal Interpretation Of The Crime Of Throwing Objects At High Altitude

The development of industrialization and modern society has brought more man-made risks to people.As a product of risk society,high-altitude parabolic objects have emerged in judicial practice in recent years,endangering people’s life and property safety,disrupting social order,and causing The public is highly concerned,and the Criminal Law Amendment(11)criminalizes such acts independently.This thesis focuses on the high-altitude projectile crime that occurs frequently in practice,discusses the judicial characterization of this type of crime and its doctrinal interpretation,and hopes to provide some reference for the judicial handling of similar cases in the future through the discussion of this thesis.The definition of the concept is the premise of being able to understand things correctly,and it is very important to master the approach to the legal regulation of parabolic behavior.Firstly,this thesis introduces the high-altitude parabola from the semantic category,and defines the concept of its normative meaning;secondly.from the legal benefit and normative purpose of behavioral infringement,the high-altitude parabola is divided into three types of behavior;finally,from the perspective of historical research,the high-altitude parabola is developed After the promulgation and implementation of the "Civil Code" and "Criminal Law Amendment(Eleven)",my country’s governance of high-altitude parabolic behavior has shown new changes.To analyze the crime composition of the crime of high-altitude throwing,it is first necessary to clarify that the legal interest protected by this crime is public order,and objectively examine whether the perpetrator has carried out the act of throwing from high-altitude,and then make a substantial and comprehensive judgment on the elements of"serious circumstances",and then make further judgments The subjective responsibility of the perpetrator.This crime is manifested as throwing objects from high altitude,and the circumstances are serious.The crime can also be established by inaction;the objective elements do not require the occurrence of actual harm,and focus on the danger of the behavior.It is more appropriate to identify this crime as an abstract dangerous crime;In terms of the circumstances,a crime can be constituted only in the case of serious circumstances;subjectively,it must have the criminal intention and responsibility of a high-altitude projectile.High-altitude projectile crime belongs to behavioral crime,and there is no unfinished form of crime;if there is a form of accomplice,the principle of causal accomplice and the principle of accomplice subordination should be adhered to.In terms of the number of crimes,by comparing the difference and co-occurrence relationship between high-altitude projectile crimes and other crimes,the boundaries between this crime and other crimes can be further clarified.There is a certain co-opetition relationship between the crime of throwing objects from high altitude and the crime of disturbing public order,infringing on the personal rights of citizens,the crime of public and private property,and the crime of endangering public security.The boundary between high-altitude parabolic and the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods should be clarified.By clarifying the concepts of "public safety"and "other dangerous methods",it is believed that the usual high-altitude parabolic behavior has no possibility of consequential expansion,and does not have dangers such as arson and explosion.The homogeneity and equivalence of the methods generally do not constitute the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods.Combined with the above analysis,we interpret the narrowing of the punishment scope of parabolic crime from the perspective of dogmatics.The establishment of the crime of high-altitude throwing as a misdemeanor has certain rationality,but attention should also be paid to the scope of its punishment and the impact of criminal records.The subjective and objective elements of the high-altitude projectile crime should be interpretatively limited,and the "serious circumstances" as the standard of incrimination should be reasonably limited.The scope of punishment for the crime,and the application of the crime should not be retroactive in principle.