On The Criminal Evaluation Of PUA Suicidal Behavior

In October 2019,the Bao case of Peking University was reported,which quickly aroused the attention of Chinese legal circles on PUA behavior.At present,the phenomenon of victim suicide death caused by PUA is common in society,as our criminal legislation does not give clear guidance on how to regulate PUA suicide behavior,which leads to the fuzzy attitude in the judicial practice.There is a great debate in the legal circle about the criminal law evaluation of PUA’s suicidal behavior.The problems mainly focus on why the bank is considered a crime and what kind of crime should be assessed.In terms of why PUA suicidal behavior is a crime,it infringes on the most important life legal interests of the victim and has serious social harm.Moreover,among a series of PUA behaviors,PUA suicidal behavior is the worst.If it is not regulated by criminal law,it goes against the rule of "putting light to light".In the past,most of the researches on PUA suicidal behavior from the Angle of "instigation of suicide" have been flawed.The essence of PUA behavior is "mental control".From the perspective of mental control,it is a new idea to explore the mental harm caused by mental control behavior to victims,find the positioning of mental harm in criminal law,and then evaluate the suicidal behavior caused by PUA in criminal law.In the suicide behavior caused by PUA,due to the particularity of the intervention factor of the victim suicide,it is also difficult to identify the causal relationship between PUA behavior and the death result of the victim.Following the objective rule theory,the causal relationship between PUA behavior and the death result in criminal law can be proved from the two aspects of causal relationship and result attribution.In view of the crime evaluation of PUA’s suicide causing behavior,current academic circles and judicial organs advocate that intentional homicide and maltreatment should be considered as the crimes to be attributed,but according to the two crime components,it is not reasonable to attribute the behavior.Mental injury is included in the category of intentional injury crime,PUA causing suicide constitutes intentional injury crime in Chinese criminal law.Meanwhile,the theory of "direct requirement" is applied to demonstrate that there is a direct causal relationship between PUA mental control behavior and the suicide death of the victim,and the result aggravates the crime,so as to conclude: The act of PUA causing suicide should be recognized as an aggravation of the crime of intentional injury,that is,the crime of intentional injury causing death.This paper applies the argumentation conclusion to the Bao case of Peking University,and then puts forward some suggestions for the trial,that is,Mou is identified as intentional injury causing death.