Qualitative Analysis Of Criminal Law In The Case Of Abuse Of Power By Liu Xianmin And Other Auxiliary Police

In this case,five auxiliary police officers pursued and blocked the drunk driver without being led by the official traffic police during the duty period,resulting in the death of the drunk driver.The judgments of the first-instance and second-instance courts held that the perpetrator was an act beyond his power and should be punished as a crime of abuse of power.This judgment only reflects the legalistic logic of the criminal practice circle in my country from the perspective of constituent elements:the law is the original law,and compliance with formal legal standards is one of the legal obligations of judicial judges when applying the law.When the external form conforms to the elements of the law,then the crime must be determined according to the law.At the same time,in order to resolve the conflict between the legal judgment in form and the value standard in substance,and achieve a balance between form and substance,judges often choose to deal with leniency or mitigation in sentencing—for example,five auxiliary police officers were sentenced to the crime of abuse of power but exempted for criminal punishment.However,there are still many things that are debatable in the judgment result of this case.First of all,the participation of auxiliary police in procedural law enforcement should be interpreted as legitimacy,which can not only relieve the pressure of police force,but also conform to the actual situation of law enforcement;on the basis of legality,through the substantive interpretation theory,with the core of non-intrusive legal interests,further deny the auxiliary police force At the same time,by discussing whether the purpose of legal norms can be achieved under ideal conditions,it demonstrates the optimality and rationality of the actor’s choice.Secondly,even if it takes a step back and admits that the perpetrator is not legitimate and creates a risk that is not allowed by law,it is still necessary to make attribution and responsibility between the behavior and the result through whether the risk is realized or not.With the help of the objective imputation theory,when there is causality in fact,it is also required to make a causal judgment on the legal evaluation.When the risk created by the perpetrator is not realized in the harmful result,the harmful result cannot be attributed to the perpetrator.Finally,the victim’s behaviors such as drinking and driving,escaping while drinking,reflect the arbitrariness of the victim’s self-determination,and autonomously dominate the realization process of the harmful outcome.Therefore,through the identification of the victim’s self-inflicted risk,the victim should be responsible for the death outcome.