For the judicial examination, causality is actually mainly an "experience" examination, and causality theory has no practical value in dealing with the examination. In the judgment of causality, it is mainly to master its manifestations: generally speaking, it is a direct and inevitable result, such as shooting people, stealing property and so on. This is common sense, even a 3-year-old child can judge, and it has nothing to do with the law. Therefore, the theory and practice of causality mainly solve special forms of expression.

1. Special manifestation of causality.

(1) behavior leads to results under certain conditions. For example, the beating behavior conforms to the victim's specific physical conditions such as diseases (such as splenomegaly, heart disease, hypertension, leukemia, thrombocytopenia), leading to death.

(2) the behavior conforms to the victim's behavior, leading to the result. For example, the victim was electrocuted while drilling into a private power grid.

(3) The connection between the two behaviors leads to the result. For example, Party A forced laborer B to operate illegally and caused an accident, Party A forced driver B to drive illegally and caused a traffic accident, and Party A instigated Party B to kill and cause death.

(4) The joint action of several behaviors leads to harmful results. For example, A dose not reach the lethal dose, and B dose not reach the lethal dose, which leads to the death result under the combined action of the total dose of poison A and B; Several people beat a person to death together and so on. Due to the adoption of the theory of objective causality, only the position of objective basis for investigating criminal responsibility is recognized, and the scope of determining causality is correspondingly expanded. Therefore, although the above situation is a bit strange, it is usually considered to be causal.

2. Problems that should be paid attention to in determining causality.

(1) Causality is interrupted. If A's beating behavior leads to the victim's injury, which is not enough to cause death, but if a car accident leads to the victim's death on the way to the hospital, or a medical accident leads to the victim's death during hospital treatment, the causal relationship between A's injury behavior and the victim's death result is interrupted by intervening factors, and there is no causal relationship. However, there is a causal relationship between the driver's traffic accident and the doctor's medical negligence.

Example: In 2003, Test Paper 2, question 4 1, C chased rival Zhao for life. Zhao's enemy, He Mou, had long wanted to kill Zhao. He happened to see Zhao in a hurry and shot C before he arrived, causing Zhao to die. There is no causal relationship between Zhao's death and C's pursuit. This is correct, because He Mou killed Zhao. If C cooperates with He Mou, one person drives away and the other person does it, then their behavior has a causal relationship with Zhao's death.

Example: In question 4 1 of Examination Paper 2 in 2003, B tried to kill his enemy Su Mou and cut him 7 times at the edge of the cliff. The victim was seriously injured and unconscious. B thought Sue was dead and left. However, after Su Mou woke up, he just took two steps and fell off the cliff and died. There is a causal relationship between Sue's death and B's harmful behavior. This is the correct conclusion, because Su's death from falling off a cliff was due to his injuries, which were beyond his control (involuntary behavior) and were not enough to interrupt the causal relationship. If Su intends to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff, the causal relationship is interrupted, and B only constitutes an attempt.

(2) Causality is not hypothetical.

For example, someone is terminally ill and dying, but the actor killed him before he died, and there is still a causal relationship.

For example, if the perpetrator killed someone before boarding the plane, but the plane that the person wanted to take crashed afterwards, none of the passengers survived. The crash did not affect the establishment of causality.

(3) Causality in criminal law usually refers to the connection between the behavior prohibited by criminal law and the result. Therefore, it has no criminal significance to only use a certain risk to lead to the causal relationship of harmful results.

Example: A wants B to die and encourages B to take risks, such as traveling by plane, climbing mountains and taking part in sports. B died in an event. For another example, A wants B to go bankrupt and encourages B to make venture capital, such as futures trading and stock trading. B is really bankrupt.

Example: Question 13 of Test Paper 2 in 2006 "A. A wanted B to run and was killed by a car, so she advised B to run on the road in the morning, and B was really killed by a car when running on the road; B. A wanted to kill B with lightning, so he suggested that B go for a walk in the Woods on rainy days, because walking in the Woods is easy to be struck by lightning. B was really killed by lightning while walking in the Woods on a rainy day. " Both cases belong to inducing people to take risks, not homicide, so although there is a conditional relationship between behavior and death result, there is no causal relationship, and the crime of intentional homicide is not established. However, it should be noted that if the situation in item B is pushed to the extreme, for example, the forest is often struck by lightning in thunderstorm days, and the locals know that no one dares to go in thunderstorm days, and the perpetrator forces others or induces young and ignorant people to go with the intention of killing people, and lightning strikes the dead, then he cannot be asserted to be innocent.

(4) Causality does not necessarily lead to aggravated crime. If a criminal act leads the victim to commit suicide, such as forcing, insulting or slandering others to commit suicide, it is usually considered to have a causal relationship, but it is not considered to be an aggravated crime of forcing, insulting or slandering others. Aggravated crime must be legal. Please refer to the section on aggravating consequential offense.

(5) Inaction also has causality.

Example:

1. Which of the following options is wrong about causality?

A. Party A intentionally hurts Party B and causes serious injuries, and Party B is sent to hospital for treatment. That night, a fire broke out in the hospital and B was burned to death. There is no causal relationship between A's injury behavior and B's death.

B. A intentionally committed violence against B by killing people, resulting in serious injury and shock to B.. Thinking that B was dead, A threw B into the lake to hide his guilt, which led to B drowning. There is a causal relationship between the murder of A and the death of B.

C. Party A had a dispute with Party B because of trivial matters, and shoved it in Party B's chest, which caused Party B to have a heart attack and died because of ineffective treatment. There is a causal relationship between A's behavior and B's death, and whether to bear criminal responsibility depends on A's subjective innocence.

D. Party A and Party B have a grudge against Party C. When Party A saw that Party B put 5mg of poison in Party C's food and knew that 5mg of poison could not kill Party C, it added 5mg of poison without Party B's knowledge, and Party C died after eating the food. The 5 mg poison administered by A itself is not enough to cause C's death, so there is no causal relationship between A's poisoning behavior and C's death.

-Answer: D. Determination of causality. A belongs to the situation that the general causal relationship is interrupted, and A's injury behavior has no causal relationship with the death result. B is a misunderstanding of causality. It regards A's "violent attack" and "corpse dumping" on B as a whole and thinks that there is causality. The misunderstanding of causality has an influence on causality. C coincides with the victim's specific physique (such as old age, illness, etc.). ), the result of accidental death, is generally considered to have a causal relationship. But causality exists objectively, and having causality does not mean having criminal responsibility. The existence or severity of criminal responsibility still needs to consider subjective circumstances. The mistake is obvious. A deliberately took advantage of the special situation formed by B poisoning, adding poison to reach a lethal dose, resulting in the death result of C poisoning. Of course, there is a causal relationship. And because it is a deliberate use of the formation conditions of B poisoning, it has subjective intention and should bear criminal responsibility.

(February 84, 2004) Party A and Party B are boiler workers in a factory. One day, A's friend called several times to urge him to make an appointment, but there was still 15 minutes before the shift was over. As soon as A thinks about it, B has been coming to take over about 15 minutes in advance, and today is coming. So, before B arrived, A left his post. It happened that B also had something important on this day. B thought, usually go and leave. I'm about 15 minutes late today. A won't mind. Therefore, after the normal shift change, it took B about 15 minutes to get to work. As a result, the boiler exploded and the unmanned operation suffered heavy losses. Behavior of Party A and Party B:

A. this is a joint crime

B. it is a joint negligence crime.

C. Each constitutes an intentional crime

D punishment shall be given according to the crimes committed by both parties.

-answer: BD. From the perspective of causality, it is the result of inaction and belongs to multiple causes and one fruit. Subjectively speaking, it is a fault.

3.(2007/2/1) Which of the following options is correct in judging causality in criminal law?

A. One beat Zhang for robbery, Zhang escaped, and another followed. Zhang accidentally dropped his wallet when he escaped, and A picked it up and left. There is a causal relationship between A's violent behavior and the acquisition of property.

B.b. Cut it with a knife based on the meaning of killing. Seeing that Cheng was in great pain after being injured, he was sent to the hospital, but the doctor made a major mistake in handling it, which led to Cheng's death. There is no causal relationship between B's behavior and Cheng's death.

C.C. When passing through the railway crossing, he met an acquaintance on duty and chatted with him, which led to the failure to put down the railing in time and ran over the yellow when the train passed by. There is a causal relationship between C's behavior and Huang's death.

D.D. hit Li on the head, causing his death and fatal injury, and died two hours later. At Li's pleading, Ding drove him to the hospital. Twenty minutes later, Gao drove a truck speeding and crashed into Ding's car, causing Li to die on the spot. There is a causal relationship between Ding's behavior and Li's death.

Answer: Both B.B. and D are related to the interruption of causality, and medical "major mistakes" can interrupt causality, so B was chosen. Note that poor medical conditions, low level of doctors and slight mistakes can not interrupt the causal relationship. C C has no obligation to act, so there is no causal relationship of inaction. Note: there is a causal relationship between the inaction of the item and the result. A, there is ambiguity.

4. (February 5, 2007) Party A ambushed in a remote place, trying to kill his enemy Lin. When he saw a black shadow coming, he thought it was Lin and shot. After the shadow fell to the ground, A found that the deceased was actually his father. Afterwards, it was found out that A's bullet didn't hit his father. His father suffered from severe heart disease and died of excessive shock after hearing the gunshots. Which of the following options is correct about A's behavior?

A.a constitutes the crime of intentional homicide.

B.a. constitutes attempted intentional homicide.

C.A. constitutes the crime of negligent death.

D. Party A shall choose felony punishment for Lin's attempted intentional homicide and the death caused by his father's negligence.

-Answer: A. If his father was shot directly, we can simply draw the conclusion that A is a positive solution according to the theory of legal conformity. But a passage was added to the story: "His father suffered from a serious heart attack and died of excessive shock after hearing the gunshots." This raises a question of judging causality, and the answer is A, which means there is causality.