What is the difference between indirect intent and overconfident negligence in criminal law

Indirect intentionality is to foresee that harmful results may or may not occur, and have a laissez-faire attitude towards the occurrence of results.

The fault of overconfidence refers to the mental attitude that one's actions may have consequences that are harmful to society, but are gullible enough to avoid such consequences.

Overconfident negligence is similar to indirect intent in that both recognize the possibility of a harmful outcome and neither expects the harmful outcome to occur, but there is a difference between the two. In essence, indirect intent reflects a positive contempt for social relations, and overconfident negligence reflects a passive and unprotective attitude towards social relations. This essential difference is reflected through their respective cognitive and volitional factors.

First, indirect intent is "knowingly" that the harmful result is likely to occur; The fault of overconfidence is the possibility of "foreseeing" the harmful outcome to occur. "Knowing" is more specific and comprehensive than "foreseeing". secondly, indirect intent is to carry out the act in order to achieve other criminal intent or non-criminal intent, without considering whether the occurrence of harmful results can be avoided; The negligence of overconfidence is carried out because it is necessary to avoid the occurrence of harmful results; Finally, indirect intent is to allow harm to occur, and the occurrence of the result is in accordance with the will of the actor; Overconfident negligence does not want or allow harmful consequences to occur, and the consequences occur against the will of the perpetrator.

Upstairs, page 241 of Mr. Zhang Mingkai's book.

Indirect intentional and overconfident negligence differ in both cognitive and volitional factors. The first is the cognitive factor, although the negligence of indirect intention and overconfidence is to foresee the possibility of the harmful result of the act, but the estimation of whether the possibility of Yinshi will be transformed into reality is different, and the psychology of indirect intention does not have a wrong understanding and estimation of the possibility of transforming into reality, and does not think that this possibility will not be transformed into reality, so in the case of the possibility being transformed into reality, that is, the occurrence of harmful results, there is no error between the actor's subjective understanding and the objective result. Subjective and objective are consistent. Although the person with this psychology also foresees the possibility of harmful results, he subjectively believes that due to his own ability, technology, experience, and some old conditions, when he carries out the act, the possibility of the occurrence of harmful results will not be transformed into reality, that is, he has a wrong understanding of the objective fact that the possibility is transformed into reality.

In the case of a harmful outcome, its subjective and objective are inconsistent. The second is the volitional factor, between.

Although both intentional and overconfident negligence do not want harmful results to occur, in-depth investigation shows that their attitudes towards harmful results are still different. Although the perpetrator of indirect intent does not want the result to occur, he does not object to the occurrence of the harmful result, so he will not rely on any conditions and measures to prevent the occurrence of the harmful result, but will let it go and deliberately allow the harmful result to occur. The actor who is overconfident and negligent not only does not want the harmful result to occur, but also does not let the harmful result occur, but hopes that the harmful result will not occur, and hopes to avoid the occurrence of the harmful result, that is, to reject and oppose the occurrence of the harmful result.

In the case of foreseeing that harmful consequences may occur in one's own conduct, the actor is still confident that he can avoid the occurrence of harmful results, and thus carries out such conduct, he must rely on certain factors that he believes can avoid the occurrence of harmful results, such as factors such as the actor's own ability, such as the actor's own ability, such as the behavioral precautions of others, and favorable factors such as objective conditions or nature.

(1) Concept:

1. Indirect intentionality: It refers to the psychological state of knowing that one's behavior may have harmful results to society, and allowing the results to occur. Tachibana Sky.

2. Overconfident negligence: refers to the psychological state of foreseeing that one's behavior may have harmful results to society, but being credulous enough to avoid them, resulting in harmful social results.

2) Differences: 1. Different volitional factors: Generally speaking, overconfident negligence and rejection have the result of harming society; Indirect and intentional non-exclusion of the occurrence of consequences that are harmful to society.

2. Different cognitive factors: In the case of overconfident negligence, although the actor foresees that his or her behavior may occur, it may not have a result that harms society;

However, the perpetrator believes that because the subjective and objective conditions are relatively good, in his opinion, the possibility of harmful social consequences is very small; In the case of indirect intent, the perpetrator usually did not foresee which was more likely. "

The difference between negligent negligence and overconfident negligence.

Comparison between overconfident negligence and negligent negligence: overconfident negligence is manifested in the fact that the actor has foreseen that his behavior may have harmful consequences to society, and at the same time is gullible enough to avoid the occurrence of harmful consequences; Negligent negligence is manifested in the psychological attitude of the actor who should have foreseen that his behavior might have a result that would harm society, but did not foresee it due to negligence.

In accordance with Article 15 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.

It is a crime of negligence to foresee that one's actions may have consequences that are harmful to society, but because of negligence and failure to foresee them, or those who have foreseen them and believe that they can avoid them, so that such a result occurs.

Only those who commit crimes of negligence shall be criminally liable if the law provides for them.

Article 233 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.

where negligence causes death, the sentence is to be between three and seven years imprisonment; where the circumstances are more minor, a sentence of up to three years imprisonment is to be given. Where this Law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.

What is the difference between indirect intent and negligence.

The difference between indirect intent and negligence is that negligence is undesirable for the occurrence of a harmful result, and indirect intent has no hope for the occurrence or non-occurrence of a harmful result. The difference between the two is mainly reflected in the difference in the constituent factors: the two are still different in the degree of understanding.

Article 14 of the Criminal Code.

Intentional crimes are committed when one clearly knows that one's conduct will have a result that is harmful to society, and hopes or allows such a result to occur, thus constituting a crime. Those who commit intentional crimes shall bear criminal responsibility.

Article 15. It is a crime of negligence to foresee that one's actions may have consequences that are harmful to society, but because of negligence and failure to foresee them, or those who have foreseen them and believe that they can avoid them, so that such a result occurs. Only those who commit crimes of negligence shall be criminally liable if the law provides for them.

Legal basis: Article 15 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China [Crimes of Negligence] A person who foresees that his or her actions may have a result that endangers society, and who fails to foresee it because of negligence, or who has foreseen it and is gullible enough to believe that it can be avoided by being blind, is a crime of negligence.

Only those who commit crimes of negligence shall be criminally liable if the law provides for them.

Legal analysis: The difference between indirect intent and overconfident negligence mainly includes: in indirect intent, the actor hopes that the harmful result will occur; In the case of overconfident negligence, the perpetrator does not want the harmful result to occur.

The Criminal Law stipulates that a person who clearly knows that his or her actions will have a result that is harmful to society, and hopes or allows such a result to occur, thus constituting a crime, is guilty of an intentional crime.

Legal basis: Article 14 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.

Intentional crime is committed intentionally if one clearly knows that one's conduct will have a result that is harmful to society, and hopes or allows such a result to occur, thus constituting a crime.

Those who commit intentional crimes shall bear criminal responsibility.

1. Different volitional factors: generally speaking, overconfident negligence rejects the result of side-by-side encounters that endanger society; Indirect and deliberate do not exclude the occurrence of dangerous luck and talk about the consequences of harming society.

2. Different cognitive factors: as far as the negligence of overconfidence is concerned, although the actor foresees that his behavior may occur, it may not have the result of harming the blind society; In the case of indirect intent, the perpetrator usually did not foresee which was more likely.