Case details

Li drove a motor vehicle on the highway after drinking, causing serious injury to himself, without causing any casualties or property damage. After being determined by the traffic police, Li is fully responsible for the accident. The public prosecution filed a lawsuit against Li for the crime of causing a traffic accident, and after trial, the court found that Li did not constitute the crime of causing a traffic accident.

Disagreements

There are two views on whether Li constitutes a traffic accident crime: one view holds that Li constitutes a traffic accident crime, Because Article 2 (2) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Traffic Accidents stipulates that "if a traffic accident causes serious injury to more than one person, bears all or the main responsibility for the accident, and has one of the following circumstances, the crime of traffic accident shall be convicted and punished: (1) driving a motor vehicle after drinking or taking drugs;..." The facts of this case comply with the provisions of the aforementioned judicial interpretation, Li's behavior of driving under the influence of alcohol endangers the life, body, or property safety of unspecified or most people, and causing serious injury to himself is the actual manifestation of this harm, thus constituting a traffic accident crime. The second viewpoint holds that Li does not constitute a traffic accident crime because the crime is an infringement of the legal interests of others, and self harm behavior does not constitute a crime; Based on legal interpretation, the term 'person' in the judicial interpretation 'causing serious injury to more than one person' should not include the individual; Moreover, criminalizing the act of causing serious injury to oneself through negligence goes against the understanding of ordinary people in society.

Evaluation and Analysis

The author agrees with the second viewpoint for the following reasons:

1. Crime is an infringement of the legal interests of others, and a simple act of self harm does not constitute a crime. Self destructive behavior refers to the behavior of the perpetrator who infringes on their own legal interests. In principle, this behavior is not illegal, because a person has the right to dispose of their own rights and interests without infringing on the rights and interests of others. When the legal interest subject infringes on their own legal interests, there is no need to believe that the legal interest should be protected. In reality, there are situations where infringement of one's own legal interests also constitutes a crime, such as using a human body bomb to detonate, soldiers self injuring themselves during wartime, or conducting explosion experiments at one's own home. However, this situation is not based on the conviction of infringement of one's own legal interests, but rather on the perpetrator using infringement of one's own legal interests as a means to infringe upon the legal interests of others or infringing upon one's own legal interests at the same time. In the criminal law and judicial interpretation provisions of our country, the condition for conviction and sentencing is based on personal injury or death, which does not include the injury or death caused to oneself. For example, Article 232 of the Criminal Law states that "intentional homicide shall be punished with death..." If the term "person" here is deemed to include oneself, then suicide constitutes a crime, but the Criminal Law of our country does not define suicide as a crime; For example, Article 233 of the Criminal Law states that "negligence causes death to a person", and the person mentioned here clearly does not include the individual, as the crime is a consequential offense, and if the negligence causes death to the individual, it cannot be convicted at all; For example, the crime of intentional injury and the crime of causing serious injury to others through negligence are directly and clearly defined as "intentionally harming the body of others" and "causing serious injury to others through negligence". There is a viewpoint that the crime of traffic accidents endangers the lives, personal or property safety of unspecified or majority individuals. In this case, Li's serious injury to me indicates that his behavior may endanger the relevant rights and interests of unspecified individuals, but this unspecified person has become me. In fact, this view uses double standards. On the one hand, it believes that the legal interest infringed by traffic accident crime should be public safety, but on the other hand, it is clear that traffic accident crime is a result offense rather than a behavior offense, and only the possible danger is not enough to convict. It is necessary to prove the harm to public safety with certain harmful results. Therefore, on the other hand, it is necessary to consider the self harm result of personal injury as the criminal result of violating public safety, Only then can the determination of traffic accident crime have a complete criminal constitution, which leads to logical confusion.

2. From the perspective of legal interpretation, the term "person" in judicial interpretation that "causes serious injury to more than one person" should not include the individual. Restrictive interpretation refers to the method of interpreting legal provisions by narrowing their meaning to the core intention, in order to accurately interpret the true and reasonable meaning of legal provisions. One of the conditions for the conviction of the traffic accident crime stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 1 (1) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Traffic Accidents is that "one person has died" or more and bears the main responsibility. According to the original meaning of the article, "person" includes oneself and others, but it is obvious that a limited interpretation should be made here, and the person here cannot include oneself, Because it is neither legally necessary nor practically meaningful to stipulate that one's behavior constitutes a crime if they have already died. Law is a complete system composed of certain logical relationships. There is a certain logical relationship between the positions of each legal provision and the relevant legal provisions before and after it. Based on the correlation between these legal provisions, the legal meaning of the relevant legal provisions is explored, and their normative intent is clarified. This interpretation method is called systematic interpretation. From the perspective of the interpretation of the criminal law system, the connotation and extension of the same text in the same or related legal provisions should be consistent. The previous clause also stipulates that "one person died or three or more people were seriously injured". Here, "one person died" and "three people were seriously injured" are juxtaposed, and the "person" in both places should be interpreted the same. "one person died" and "three people were seriously injured" do not include the person themselves. Similarly, the term "person" in the second paragraph of this law, which refers to drunk driving causing serious injury to more than one person, should not include the individual.

3. Criminalizing the act of causing serious injury to oneself due to negligence goes against the understanding of ordinary people in society. The essential characteristic of crime is the social harmfulness that reaches the level of punishment that should be imposed. Only when the social harmfulness reaches a certain level of severity can it constitute a crime. A person who causes serious injuries to oneself while driving under the influence of alcohol, as they have not caused actual losses to others and have received painful lessons in the event, often becomes a sympathetic object of people, and convicting them is contrary to common sense. Moreover, the crime of causing serious injury to others through negligence constitutes a crime. If the crime of causing serious injury to oneself as a negligent crime constitutes a crime, it will result in an imbalance between crime and punishment, which is unfair.

(Author's unit: Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People's Court Chongqing Changshou District People's Court)