On The Crime Of Throwing Objects From High Altitude

Before March 2021,there is no criminal regulation on high-altitude parabolic behavior,and the effect of regulating high-altitude parabolic behavior through civil means and administrative punishment is not obvious.In order to deal with the increasingly frequent high-altitude parabolic behavior and increase the crackdown on high-altitude parabolic behavior,high-altitude parabolic behavior has been put on the legislative agenda.After a series of discussions on whether high-altitude parabolic behavior is an independent crime and whether the infringement of legal interests is public order or public safety,"Criminal Law Amendment(Eleventh)" added the crime of throwing objects from heights.Through the empirical analysis method,four criminal judgments related to high-altitude parabolic behavior were selected for analysis,and it was found that most of the judgments did not clearly explain the key elements of high-altitude parabolic behavior,such as "high altitude","throwing","object" and "serious circumstances",one of which is that the interpretation of "high altitude" is not clear enough,and it is often replaced by the height of the floor.A clear analysis and definition of these key elements is required.In addition,the subjective mentality of the crime of throwing objects from heights can only be intentional,excluding negligence.If a negligent mentality causes objects to fall from heights,other crimes will be determined depending on the degree of harm.The problem that the crime of throwing objects from heights overlaps with other crimes is the top priority in judicial judgments,such as the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means,the crime of intentionally destroying property,the crime of major liability accidents,and the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.Among them,the difference about the violation of legal interests is the key to distinguish the crime of throwing objects from high altitudes from the crime of endangering public safety in dangerous ways.It is hoped that the above research can resolve some controversial issues in judicial practice.