On The Application Of The Crime Of Obstructing The Prevention And Control Of Infectious Diseases

This article adopts the method of case analysis,and makes statistics on the legal situation of crime form,subjective guilt and causality of the crime of hindering the prevention and control of infectious diseases,in order to find the omissions and inappropriateness of the crime of preventing and controlling infectious diseases in judicial practice,Combining with the relevant theoretical knowledge,put forward appropriate solutions.Based on the analysis and research of 75 judgment documents obtained after searching and screening,this paper finds that the applicable problems of the crime of hindering the prevention and control of infectious diseases in judicial practice are mainly exposed in three aspects: dual criminal form identification,subjective guilt identification and causal relationship demonstration.In terms of identification of double criminal forms,there are mainly two problems in practice: the confusion of actual harm crimes and dangerous crimes and the application of dangerous crimes too leniently.First,whether there is an actual harmful result,that is,whether the perpetrator’s violation of the Law on the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases has caused others to be diagnosed as a positive patient of new coronary pneumonia is the standard for determining the double crime form of this crime.In cases where actual harmful results occur,both There are cases identified as actual offenders of crimes against the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases,and cases identified as dangerous criminals of this crime,and the two are applied in confusion.Second,based on the analysis of the judgment documents,it can be concluded that the judiciary mostly regards the occurrence of certain people as the main criteria for examining dangerous criminals in this crime,such as the isolation of certain people and the closure of public places.However,in practice,there are some cases in which the perpetrator’s refusal to implement epidemic prevention measures did not cause the above results,and was still identified as a dangerous criminal for the crime of obstructing the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases.In terms of the identification of subjective guilt,there are problems such as the lack of legal provisions on the subjective guilt of this crime,and the confusion of identification in practice.For the latter,three situations can be summarized.First,skipping the clear determination of the defendant’s subjective guilt and directly citing the content of Article 330 of the Criminal Law,this kind of determination violates the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity,and there is a tendency to objectively impute guilt.Second,key words such as "knowingly" appeared in the judgment document.In this case,the court held that the defendant violated the Law on the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases knowing that he could not do it,but did not find that the perpetrator had caused close contacts to be isolated,Attitudes towards such consequences as diagnosis results,closure of public places,etc.Third,there was only one case in which the defendant was clearly found guilty of subjective crimes,and the court adopted his defender’s defense that the defendant was negligent.In terms of causality demonstration,due to the complexity of the virus transmission mechanism,the traditional theory of causality cannot be applied to this crime,and there is a lack of demonstration of the causal relationship between the defendant’s behavior and the harmful outcome in practice.Aiming at the above problems,this paper puts forward solutions in combination with existing principles and concepts in criminal law.Regarding the application of the dual criminal form of this crime in practice,the diagnosis results of the affected population should be the main focus,supplemented by the identity of the person who was diagnosed.As for the subjective crime of obstructing the Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases,it is more appropriate to adopt the "negligence theory" for this crime from the four perspectives of the attitude of the perpetrator in practice,the principle of adapting the crime to punishment,the nature of the administrative offense of this crime,and the identity of the perpetrator.To solve the problem of causal relationship demonstration in this crime,the principle of restraint in criminal law is oriented,and the "principle of innocence" and "principle of crime in a secret room" replace the introduction of epidemiological causality.