Is there a provision that indirect intent does not constitute a crime without causing harm?

There is this rule. Indirect intent refers to the mental attitude of knowing that one's behavior will cause harm to society, and allowing such harmful consequences to occur.

Legal analysisThe establishment of indirect intent also requires the perpetrator to be aware of the social nature of his act, the consequences of his act that will harm society, the causal relationship between the act and the result, and the specific facts stipulated in the criminal law. In terms of the content of these knowings, indirect intent is no different from direct intent However, there is a difference between indirect and direct intent in terms of the degree of awareness.

Unlike direct intent, which is the recognition of the inevitability or possibility of a harmful outcome, indirect intent can only be the recognition of the possibility of a harmful outcome. If the actor realizes that the harmful result will inevitably occur and decides to do it, it cannot be considered that the actor has a laissez-faire attitude towards the outcome, and thus it cannot be determined that the actor has indirect intent towards the outcome. It can be seen that in the case of indirect intention, the probability of the occurrence of the result of the cognition is less than that of direct intention.

However, when the perpetrator believes that a harmful result may occur and allows it to occur, and objectively such a harmful result will inevitably occur, because the laissez-faire mentality can be determined, it does not prevent the actor from only establishing indirect intent. This also fully illustrates the antagonistic and unified relationship between epistemic factors and volitional factors: epistemic factors are the premise of volitional factors, and at the same time, volitional factors have an important impact on the identification of epistemic factors.

The indirect intentional volitional factor refers to allowing harmful results to occur. The so-called laissez-faire means to let nature go unchecked, to let it go unchecked, and to condone the occurrence of harmful results. In other words, the occurrence of harmful consequences is not actively pursued, but also does not seek to avoid them.

As long as the perpetrator does not hope that the result will not happen, but is psychologically able to accept the occurrence of the result, it is permissive.

Legal basisArticle 234 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China: 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 234-1 Whoever organizes others to sell human organs is sentenced to up to five years imprisonment and a concurrent fine; where the circumstances are serious, a sentence of five or more years imprisonment and a concurrent fine or confiscation of property is to be given. Whoever removes his or her organs, or removes organs from a person under the age of 18, or forces or deceives others to donate organs, is to be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of articles 234 and 232 of this Law. Where organs from corpses are removed against the person's prior wishes, or where the person does not express their consent before their death, violates state provisions by removing their cadaver organs against the wishes of their close relatives, it is to be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of article 302 of this Law.

This issue is a matter of legal rationality, indirect intent, if it does not cause harm, it does not constitute a crime, there is no problem, and permissiveness requires a harmful result to be produced before it is convenient to be found to be permissive.

There is no such provision, but the circumstances you describe are acts that do not cause harmful consequences and are most likely to be dealt with as an attempt to commit a crime.

For example, if you set a fire and still have a cigarette butt in the warehouse, there is a suspicion of burning down the warehouse, but later because the cigarette butt happened to be thrown into the concrete floor or water, you do not need to bear criminal responsibility.

Crimes that are indirectly intentionally not established should be distinguished on the basis of the actual situation, and specifically determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law. Indirect intent refers to the mental attitude of the perpetrator who clearly knows that his or her conduct may have a result that is harmful to society, and allows such a result to occur. In other words, to foresee the possibility of a harmful outcome and to let it go is to ignore the intention of the conversation.

Legal basisArticle 14 of the Criminal Law is a copy of Huai.

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, and those who fail to foresee them because of negligence, or who have foreseen them and believe that they can avoid them, and who are prepared for their friends to cause such a result to occur.

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

The so-called joint criminal intent refers to the state of mind in which the joint offenders realize that their joint criminal acts will have a result harmful to society, and are determined to participate in the joint crime, hoping or allowing such a result to occur. Its characteristics are:1

The common cognitive factors include three elements: First, the recognition that it is not oneself that commits crimes alone, but cooperates with others to commit crimes in the absence of a cycle. The second is not only to recognize that one's own behavior will produce some kind of harmful result, but also to realize that the behavior of other co-offenders will also cause some kind of harmful result.

Third, each joint offender foresaw a causal relationship between the joint criminal act and the outcome of the joint crime. 2.A common element of will.

Among them, the common hope for the occurrence of the harmful result is the common direct intention;Jointly allowing harmful results to occur is joint indirect intent, and in individual cases it may also be manifested as either hope-based or permissive.

There is no attempt to commit an indirect intentional crime. This is because in indirect intent, the perpetrator has a laissez-faire attitude towards the occurrence or non-occurrence of harmful results, and when the harmful results occur to the legal level, the crime has been established. An attempt to commit a crime is when the perpetrator has set out to commit the crime, but has not succeeded for reasons other than his will.

Zheng Jian. Legal basisArticle 23 of the Criminal Code.

An attempt to commit a crime is an attempt to commit a crime if it has already been committed and has not succeeded due to reasons other than the will of the offender.

For attempted offenders, the punishment may be mitigated or commuted by comparison with the completed offenses.

Article 14. Intentionally committing a crime is a crime if one clearly knows that one's conduct will be lenient and will have a result that endangers society, and hopes or allows such a result to occur, thus constituting a crime.

Those who commit intentional crimes shall bear criminal responsibility.

The crime of omission and the indirect intentional crime are two different levels of concepts, and there is no one-to-one correspondence, and the crime of omission can be a direct intentional crime, an indirect intentional crime, or a negligent crime.

The harmful acts in the objective aspect of the crime can be divided into acts and omissions, and those who commit crimes by omission are called crimes of omission. The core of the crime of omission is that the perpetrator's behavior violates the command norms of the law, that is, "should do but not do", which is a concept opposite to the crime of acting, and is not directly related to the subjective psychological state of the perpetrator.

Indirect intent refers to the psychological attitude of the perpetrator who clearly knows that his or her conduct will cause harmful results to occur, but allows harmful consequences to occur, and is the subjective content of the crime. The key to judging indirect intent lies in the actor's consciousness and volitional factors for the harmful result, which is a concept opposite to direct intention, but has no direct relationship with the actor's objective mode of conduct.

The crime of omission and the indirect intentional crime are two different levels of concepts, and there is no one-to-one correspondence, and the crime of omission can be a direct intentional crime, an indirect intentional crime, or a negligent crime.

The main point of the definition of indirect intent is to knowingly know that a harmful result will occur, but let it happen. Therefore, since there is a basis for foresight, there will be a criminal purpose.

For example, if you want to poison your wife and poison your food, but let your son eat it together, your wife and your son will die. In this case, the act was an imaginary conspiracy, and the act of poisoning was direct and intentional for the death of his wife, but indirect for the death of his son.

However, the purpose of his crime was clear, that is, to kill his wife.

Another example: A and B (a middle-aged man living alone) live next to each other, and the grievances have not been resolved for many years due to the issue of homestead demarcation, and A wants to kill B in order to vent his anger, and one day, B accidentally falls into the courtyard of A's house and falls unconscious, and only A is at home, and A neither rescues nor seeks other rescue. A's conduct constituted the crime of indirect intentional homicide.

In this example, A's conduct was subjectively indirect, but the purpose of killing had been achieved.

As long as the result of indirect intent occurs, there is a criminal purpose, and the criminal purpose may be inconsistent with the criminal result, but it does not hinder the existence of the criminal purpose.

Indirect intent is knowing that a harmful result has occurred, but allowing the harmful result to occur. There is overconfidence and negligence. Since the perpetrator's conduct already knows that a dangerous result has occurred, a criminal purpose already exists, and whether or not it is permissive, as long as the result occurs, there is a criminal purpose, and the criminal purpose may be inconsistent with the criminal result, but it does not hinder the existence of the criminal purpose.

I've just figured this out... According to pages 139-140 of our textbook "Criminal Law" (edited by Chen Xingliang), in the theory of criminal law, the intention constituted by the element of indulgence is called indirect intentionality. Laissez-faire means that the perpetrator has a conniving and resigned attitude towards possible outcomes.

That is, the actor in order to pursue a certain! Objective! and when carrying out certain acts, knowing that the conduct may have a certain harmful result; The perpetrator neither wants the harmful result to occur, nor does he hope that the harmful result will not occur, but still carries out the act, and does not take measures to prevent the harmful result from occurring, but allows the harmful result to occur; Whether the result occurs or not, it is not against the will of the perpetrator.

That is to say, the occurrence of indirect intent has a purpose, but not a criminal purpose, because the concept of criminal purpose has an element of hope for the outcome, but the occurrence of indirect intention may be based on other criminal or non-criminal purposes. It's like the three cases mentioned on the 3rd floor. Well...

If you still don't understand, feel free to continue the discussion! Help each other! ~

The subjective aspect of the crime – guilt. The basic types of sin: the cognitive factor and the volitional factor.

Epistemic factors: awareness of necessity, awareness of possibility, failure to recognize. The volitional factor:

Hopeful, laissez-faire, credulous, careless. The combination of knowledge and volition is constituted: direct intention, indirect intention, overconfident negligence, negligent negligence.

In addition to the basic types, it includes: subjective cognitive errors, expecting possibilities, and the purpose and motivation of the crime. Criminal Purpose:

It refers to the specific goal to be achieved by the perpetrator in committing the criminal act, and the certain harmful consequences pursued.

So your question is flawed. In indirect intentional crimes, the simple introduction of indirect intent is: the perpetrator allows another harmful result to occur in order to pursue a criminal purpose, that is, in order to achieve a specific criminal intent, he allows another possible concomitant result to appear.

Take a simple example and you will understand: A poisons the food that the family eats in order to kill his wife B. There is also a 7-year-old daughter at home who lives and eats with them.

As a result, both his wife and daughter were poisoned. In this case, in order to pursue the criminal purpose of poisoning his wife B, A indulged in the care and consideration of his daughter's right to life and health. This is an indirect and intentional crime against his daughter.

In the case of indirect intentional crimes alone, there is no criminal purpose. Because it is not the active pursuit of the appearance of the criminal result, of course, there is no direct purpose.

No. Indirect intent is a manifestation of foreknowledge of the outcome of the violation, but overconfidence that the harmful result will not occur, or negligence that should have been discovered but did not find the danger.

Existence, indirect intentionality is also intentionality, unlike negligence.