news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

regarding the case of the boy being run over while riding a bicycle, let me explain to you the case that happened in jiangsu and was reported in today's statement.

that case is almost identical to this one.

it also happened on an undelivered closed road, and the driver also hit the other party to death. the only difference is that the scene of this accident happened after dark, not during the day. however, this difference is one of the reference factors for the traffic police to determine the responsibilities of both parties, and does not involve the application of legal logic.

i have watched the entire video and would like to explain to you the case handling ideas of the local public security, procuratorial and judicial organs in jiangsu.

the public security bureau initially detained the driver on the grounds that he was suspected of committing the crime of manslaughter.

however, when the police communicated with the procuratorate, they discussed a situation that if the case was handled in the same way as a traffic accident, the driver would at most be held equally responsible and would not bear criminal responsibility. the procuratorate therefore believed that if this was the case, the driver should not bear criminal responsibility. as a result, the police dropped the criminal case.

let me explain to you why the local public security and procuratorial organs in jiangsu can handle this matter according to this idea.

because article 77 of the road traffic safety law stipulates that when a traffic accident occurs outside the "legal" roads, the traffic police department shall refer to the relevant provisions of the road traffic safety law when receiving a report. the original text of the legal provision stipulates that it should be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions.

although the word "reference" is not an absolute expression, if it is handled with reference, the entire approach will continue along the logic of handling traffic accidents.

if we continue along the line of thought in handling traffic accidents, whether the driver has committed a crime depends mainly on whether he has committed the crime of traffic accident.

as for the crime of causing a traffic accident, in an accident that causes one death, the driver will only be guilty of the crime if he bears full responsibility or main responsibility. if he bears equal responsibility or secondary responsibility, etc., he will not be guilty of the crime. therefore, in this case, the driver will not bear criminal responsibility in the end.

of course, due to the ambiguity of the legal provisions, it is difficult to fully state this approach. so we can see in the video that the local public security agency only stated in front of the camera that the driver does not bear criminal responsibility, but did not explicitly state that the driver did not commit a traffic accident crime.

the phrase "not bearing criminal responsibility" is a somewhat general statement. the comrade interviewed did not specify what criminal responsibility he would not bear, but only said that he would not bear criminal responsibility.

the source is that the original text of the law stipulates "reference" rather than "according to" or "based on". the word "reference" has a certain degree of compromise and is not an absolute expression. if the case is handled "referenced" to traffic accidents, then logically speaking, it is also necessary to "reference" the conviction principles for handling traffic accidents to make a conviction.

however, since the application of criminal law is very strict, strictly speaking, one is one and two is two, and there is no such thing as "reference", so i understand that the local public security organs were reluctant to completely expose this meaning when facing media interviews. but from their hearts, they should feel that they need to follow the logical thinking of handling traffic accidents, so in the end they dropped the criminal case against the driver.

the ambiguity of legal provisions at the source leads to different approaches in reality.

this is how the local authorities handled the case in jiangsu, but in some other cases, some public security, procuratorial and judicial organs handled them according to the crime of negligent homicide.

from the perspective of the simple ideas of the majority of netizens, i understand that everyone generally believes that this should be handled as a traffic accident. because netizens are not from the legal profession, even someone like me who is from the legal profession has studied it for a long time before i understand the ins and outs of it.

for non-legal professionals, the first impression is that this is almost always a traffic accident. even though the road has not yet been delivered, it is very flat and has all kinds of traffic signs, so why is it not a traffic accident?

even in the case in jiangsu, both the person who hit the other person and the person who was hit believed that it was a traffic accident.

few people would think that this was a non-traffic accident that occurred on a non-"legal" road.

have you noticed that in some cases, the ideas of a very small number of legal professionals conflict with those of ordinary people? i mean a very small number of legal professionals, because even within the legal community, jiangsu's approach is different from that of some other places.

moreover, the jiangsu case was reported by today's statement, which shows that the handling method of the jiangsu case has also been recognized by the top official media within the system.

so, what should we do when the ideas of some legal professionals conflict with those of ordinary people?

in the era of internet public opinion, there are roughly two ways to deal with it:

first, we should adhere to the ideas of some legal professionals and handle the case. in this case, these legal professionals and the units behind them need to be prepared to be questioned by netizens for a long time.

the second is to set up a jury system like the british and american laws. the so-called jury is essentially 12 people selected from netizens, and these 12 people have the final say on whether someone is guilty or not.

professional judges do not have the authority to decide guilt or innocence.

in this type of criminal case, the professional judge is only the host of the trial, who presides over the parties to present evidence, cross-examination, debate, etc. in a certain process and order. the decision of guilt or innocence is made by these 12 netizens.

of course, there are certain conditions for the selection of these 12 netizens, mainly excluding professionals, people with extreme personalities, extremes, emotional people, etc. the core selection direction is to find 12 completely ordinary people, passers-by who would not be looked at twice in the crowd, and let them decide whether they are guilty or not.

during the trial of a case, the 12 members are generally placed in a closed place, such as a hotel, and are not allowed to access any news media reports to avoid being affected by improper media publicity.

after the jury has made its verdict, in most cases, netizens will have less motivation to question it. this is because the decision of guilt or innocence is made by passersby. after reading all the statements and relevant evidence, passersby will definitely have stronger credibility than professional judges when making a decision.

in my opinion, there are basically these two ways.

finally, let me talk about the trial and judgment of the civil part of the jiangsu case.

since the criminal case was dropped, the victim went to court to sue the driver, the road operator, and the insurance company, demanding compensation.

when hearing the case, the judge also faces the question of whether to treat it as a traffic accident or not.

the judge finally decided to handle the case in the same way as a traffic accident according to article 77 of the road traffic safety law mentioned above. since the case is handled in the same way as a traffic accident, the insurance company must pay compensation.

let me just say that if the traffic accident is not handled in accordance with the regulations, the insurance company will not be held responsible.

of course, before that, there is the question of whether the road party is responsible.

the judge believed that although the road party had posted warning signs at the entrance, it had not fulfilled its obligation to fully close the road, and therefore assigned a 30% responsibility to the road party.

of the remaining 70% of the responsibility, the judge held that the driver and the victim were equally responsible for the traffic accident. however, the legal concepts of traffic accident liability and civil compensation liability are slightly different. generally speaking, in terms of civil compensation, the victim will be given a proper tilt because, after all, the other party was injured.

therefore, in terms of civil compensation, the judge finally ruled that the driver should bear 60% of the remaining 70% liability, and the victim should bear 40% of it.

that is to say, in general, the road party bears 30% of the civil compensation liability, the driver bears 42% of the civil compensation liability, the injured party bears 28% of the liability, and the insurance company bears the compensation obligation within the scope of insurance.

after the verdict was made, no party appealed.