How to distinguish between the crime of intentional injury and the crime of negligence causing death

Definition of the crime of intentional injury (causing death) and the crime of negligence causing death.

Where intentional injury causes death, it is an aggravating circumstance of the crime of intentional injury, which refers to the perpetrator clearly knowing that his or her conduct would cause bodily harm to others, and hoping or allowing the harmful consequences to occur, but unexpectedly causing death. The characteristics of the crime are: 1. Objectively manifested as an act that illegally harms the physical health of others, and causes the death of others; 2. In the subjective aspect, the actor clearly knows that his conduct will cause bodily harm to others, and hopes or allows the harmful result to occur, but does not want or allow the death to occur, that is, there is only the intention to cause harm to others and not the intention to cause death.

The crime of causing death by negligence refers to the act of causing the death of another person due to the perpetrator's negligence. The characteristics of the crime are: 1. The objective aspect is that it is the result of causing the death of another person due to the act or omission of the perpetrator.

2. Subjective negligence, including overconfident negligence and negligent negligence.

Based on the characteristics of the crimes constituted by the above two crimes, the similarities and differences can be clearly distinguished. The similarity is that both objectively caused the result of the victim's death, and subjectively acted at fault for the result of death, neither wishing nor allowing the death result to occur, and the death result was unexpected. The difference is that intentional injury resulting in death clearly presupposes the intent to injure, whereas negligent death does not involve the intent to injure another person's body.

Therefore, the key to distinguishing between the two lies in whether the perpetrator subjectively has the intent to harm. To determine whether the perpetrator subjectively had the intent to harm, the subjective and objective factors should be examined in the whole case, such as the occasion, environment, tools of the blow, the location of the blow, the force and frequency of the blow, the relationship between the two parties, and the degree of harm caused, and other different circumstances, to analyze whether the perpetrator had the intent to harm others, whether he intentionally harmed others, or negligently or accidentally caused death only with the intent of ordinary beating.

Legal Analysis: Intentional injury resulting in death is premised on the intent to injure, while negligence causing death does not have the intention to injure the body of another person. The key to distinguishing between the two lies in whether the perpetrator subjectively has the intent to harm.

To determine whether the perpetrator subjectively had the intent to harm, the subjective and objective factors should be examined in a comprehensive manner.

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

Article 234:Whoever intentionally injures the body of another person shall be sentenced to up to three years imprisonment, short-term detention or controlled release.

Whoever commits the crime in the preceding paragraph, causing serious injury, is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years; Whoever causes death or seriously injures a person by especially cruel means, causing serious disability, is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment, or death. Where this Law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.

Article 233:Whoever causes death by negligence shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; 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.

In the case of intentional injury resulting in death, the similarity between the two is that both objectively cause the death of the victim, and subjectively, the perpetrator often expresses a negligent mental attitude towards the occurrence of the death result. The fundamental difference between the two crimes is that the former crime has the intention to injure others, and the result of its death is caused by reasons other than the will of the perpetrator; The latter crime was committed without intent to commit a crime, but by negligence causing death.

In judicial practice, it is very important to find out whether the perpetrator has criminal intent based on the facts of the case to draw the line between the two crimes.

1. Characteristics of the crime of negligent death.

1) The object violated by this crime is the right to life of others;

2) The objective manifestations of this crime are:

1. The perpetrator has an act that causes death;

2. Objectively, there must have been a result that caused death;

3. There is a causal relationship between the perpetrator's negligent act and the result of the victim's death.

3) The subject of the crime is an ordinary subject, that is, a natural person who is at least 16 years old and has the capacity for criminal responsibility, and may constitute the subject of this crime;

4) The crime is subjectively manifested as negligence in the crime, including overconfident negligence and negligent negligence, which is for the result of death.

II. Precautions for the crime of negligence causing death.

Attention should be paid to the following issues in the trial of this crime:

1. In judicial practice, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between overconfident manslaughter and indirect intentional homicide. What both have in common is that they both foresee that their actions may result in the death of the victim, and neither of them wants such an outcome to occur.

The key to distinguishing between the two lies in ascertaining whether the perpetrator is gullible and avoids the result of shouting death, or has a laissez-faire attitude.

2. Negligent manslaughter and accidents are sometimes difficult to distinguish. The common denominator of the two is that the perpetrator's actions caused the death of the victim, but neither of them foresaw it.

The key to the distinction is to ascertain whether the perpetrator should have foreseen it in the circumstances. Although the perpetrator objectively causes the death of another person, it is not due to the negligence of the actor, but is caused by unforeseeable reasons, and it is an accident. If the perpetrator should have foreseen it but negrantly failed to foresee it, resulting in death, it is manslaughter.

3. In the trial of the crime of causing death by negligence, where the Criminal Law has other provisions on the punishment of causing death by negligence, these provisions do not apply in accordance with the special provisions of each article of the Criminal Law. There are mainly fires, negligent poisoning, negligence and other deaths as stipulated in the Criminal Law, traffic accidents causing death, and major liability accidents causing death.

4. The new Criminal Law adds a provision that a person who commits this crime and the circumstances are relatively minor shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years.

The difference between the crime of intentional injury (causing death) and the crime of negligence causing death mainly lies in the difference in subjective mentality: intentional injury causing death subjectively means intentionally, knowingly, and actively pursuing the occurrence of dangerous consequences, committing harm to others, and causing the death of the victim;

Death caused by negligence is subjectively the result of negligence, negligence that was not foreseen or foreseen and credulously believed to have avoided the death of another person.

Legal basis] Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Law, where negligence causes death, a sentence of not less than three years but not more than seven years imprisonment shall be given; 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.