Research On The Criminal Responsibility Of The Former Perpetrator In The Case Of “Second Crush”

The perpetrator fled the scene after the traffic accident causing the injured to be run over and killed by a later vehicle,and in judicial practice there is a wide divergence in the conviction and sentencing of the previous perpetrators.The focus of the case as follows: whether there is a causal relationship between fleeing the scene without assistance and the death of the victim;whether the subjective state of mind of the previous perpetrator for the death of the victim is intentional or negligent;how to characterize the act of fleeing the scene without assistance.With regard to the determination of causation,the conditionality theory does not well address the issue of causation when intervening factors are present.The judgment standard of equivalent causality is vague and lacks standardized judgment criteria.Objective attribution theory returns to the attribution nature of causation,not only provides the basic framework,but also has meticulous judgment rules.In the judgment of causation when there are secondary crushing intervening factors,the objective attribution theory is drawn upon.Regarding the determination of subjective guilt,the focus is on the determination of subjective indirect intent.In terms of cognitive factors,the content of knowledge includes knowledge at the level of the fact of criminal composition and knowledge at the level of the evaluation of the constituent elements.Scholars in various countries generally agree that knowledge on the factual level of crime composition should refer to knowledge of the objective aspects of the crime,including knowledge of the object of the act,knowledge of the act,knowledge of the harmful consequences,and knowledge of the causal relationship.Regarding the knowledge on the evaluation level of the constituent elements,which revolves around the knowledge of illegality and social harm,having knowledge of social harm is sufficient.In terms of the will factor,indulgence is a laissez-faire attitude toward the outcome.Regarding the characterization of escaping from the scene without providing rescue.It is very important to correctly understand "escape" and the normative purpose of "escape" must be found.The argument of evading legal investigation does not meet the reasonable expectations of the criminal law for the perpetrator,and it is even more inconsistent with the criminal law’s stipulations on surrendering.The argument of evading the obligation to rescue is conducive to preventing the further expansion of infringement of legal interest.The normative purpose of "escape" should be to rescue the injured.The essence of "escape" is inaction.The obligation of action comes from the positive action obligation caused by the preceding behavior.The content of the obligation of action is to provide assistance to the injured person.The prior behavior of the traffic accident arises as the key to the obligation lies in the fact that the perpetrator has a de facto domination over the legal interests of the injured person’s life and health,and this domination is exclusive.When the subjective crime is negligence,it may constitute a hit-and-run,a hit-and-run causing death,or negligence causing death.When the subjective crime is intentional,it may constitute a hit-and-run,a hit-and-run causing death,or intentional inaction homicide.