In the special period of prevention and control of the new coronary pneumonia epidemic, in order to ensure the orderly development of epidemic prevention and control work and safeguard the safety of citizens’ lives and property, political and legal organs across the country have actively taken action to severely crack down on the prevention and control of crimes involving epidemic situations. However, the epidemic situation is fierce, and the experience of judicial practice on the charges related to the epidemic situation is relatively inadequate. Therefore, in practice, problems such as inconsistent and inaccurate standards for the application of crime prevention and control charges have emerged. For example, since the epidemic prevention and control, some people have weak legal awareness. The prevention and control measures carried out by government agencies and relevant departments not only do not cooperate but also hinder the normal development of prevention and control work. Chicken feathers are arrows, even punching and kicking the control personnel.
Case 1: On January 17, 2020, 44-year-old Gou Mou and his son worked in Wuhan for a long time. After the two returned to Hanshuigou Village, Lijiashan Town, Huangzhong County, Xining City, they refused to implement the relevant regulations and deliberately concealed the true itinerary. , Fabricated false information about the date of guining, deliberately concealed symptoms such as fever and cough, deceived the investigating interviewees, and actively contacted the surrounding people many times. Gou Mou and his son were diagnosed with new coronary pneumonia, and were investigated by public security organs for dangerous crimes against public safety.
Case 2: On January 20, 2020, after working in Wuhan, Li Moujing returned to Cangshang Town, Baihe County, Shaanxi Province. The town and village arranged a special person to inform Li Moujing of the returnees in Wuhan, asking him to isolate his whole family from contact. No one else can go out or have dinner. However, Li Moujing refused to implement the epidemic prevention and control measures, deliberately concealed the information of recent close contacts, and carried out a large number of visits by the local disease control center. 104 close contacts were found and observed in isolation, and the public security organs used to hinder the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. Criminal investigation.
It can be seen that for the refusal to implement prevention and control measures, there are cases where the circumstances of the case are close to the applicable charges. In order to severely punish crimes involving epidemic situations while ensuring the suitability of crimes and punishments, the crime to prevent and control infectious diseases should be activated. At the same time, the elements of the crimes involving epidemic situations should be deeply understood, and the boundaries between this crime and other crimes, and between crime and non-crime should be accurately grasped.
1. Why should we activate the crime to prevent and control infectious diseases
In the past, the application of crimes that impede the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases in practice is rare. In the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases That Prevent, Prevent and Control Emergent Infectious Disease Epidemic Situations jointly issued by the Two Highs in 2013, it was stipulated that the pathogens of sudden infectious diseases were intentionally transmitted and endangered public safety. Convict and punish crimes of endangering public safety in a dangerous way The regulation was implemented in the context of SARS not being classified as a Class A infectious disease. Since the obstruction of an infectious disease can be cured does not punish the transmission of Class B infectious diseases, the crime was not applied during the period of SARS. Stand still.
Activating crimes that impede the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases embodies the adaptation of crime, punishment, and precision of sentencing and conviction. The crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods does not explicitly stipulate the specific behavior of endangering public safety by other dangerous methods, which results in a large number of practices with the nature of endangering public safety in practice are regarded as crimes of endangering public safety by dangerous methods . The sentence for crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods is relatively large, and the death penalty can even be imposed. Limiting the scope of punishment for crimes that endanger public safety with dangerous methods and preventing them from being a pocket crime is not only a general knowledge in the theoretical world but also a direction of judicial practice. Among the five batches of typical cases involving epidemic prevention and control crimes announced by the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the true itinerary and physical health were deliberately concealed, and many people were segregated and closely observed to investigate the crime of obstructing the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases.
Activating the crime against the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases can effectively improve citizens' public health safety awareness. The correct application of crimes that impede the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases has increased the importance of citizens' supply of epidemic prevention and control work, enabling citizens to actively cooperate with epidemic prevention and control measures to ensure the smooth development of epidemic prevention and control work.
Although the new coronary pneumonia was included in the Class B infectious diseases as stipulated in the Law on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases, it stipulates the prevention and control measures for Class A infectious diseases, which effectively activates the crime against the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, so that the crime can be guaranteed The role of epidemic prevention and control order.
2. How to activate the crime of preventing and controlling infectious diseases
Refusing to implement the preventive and control measures proposed by the health and anti-epidemic agencies in accordance with the Law on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases is one of the four situations stipulated in the Crime of Preventing and Controlling Infectious Diseases, and is also a common illegal situation in this epidemic. Focusing on practical needs, the correct application of crimes to prevent and control infectious diseases and dealing with this common illegal act are the top priorities for activating this clause.
The subject of the crime. The perpetrator should be a high-risk person such as a newly diagnosed patient, suspected patient or close contact person of new coronary pneumonia, otherwise his refusal to perform preventive and preventive measures will not cause the risk of infectious disease transmission.
In terms of behavior. The prevention and control measures proposed by the health and anti-epidemic institutions in accordance with the Law on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases include the prevention and control measures proposed in addition to the laws and regulations and regulatory documents such as the Emergency Response Law and the Emergency Regulations for Public Health Emergencies. It should include epidemic prevention and control measures issued by other local governments and relevant departments in accordance with the above laws and regulations and regulatory documents. The main manifestations are: concealing personal itinerary, contact history, concealing physical health, refusing to implement isolation measures, refusing to cooperate with sanitary treatment, wearing masks, measuring body temperature and other control measures, and close contact with others.
Results. Crimes that impede the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases are crimes against public health, so those who infect family members living with them do not belong to this category. It should be investigated whether the perpetrator caused multiple people to be diagnosed with new coronary disease or a large number of contacts were isolated.
Subjective aspects. The perpetrators of the crime of infringing on the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases intentionally refuse to implement the prevention and control measures proposed by the health and epidemic prevention agencies in accordance with the Law on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases, while It can be intentional or negligent.
Secondly, in practice, the more prominent issue is the confusing application of refusal to implement prevention and control measures in the crimes of “obstructing the prevention of communicable diseases”, “crimes of endangering public safety by dangerous methods” and “crimes of impeding official duties”. Applicable boundaries, correct distinction between this crime and other crimes, and adhere to the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity can truly activate the crime to prevent the prevention of infectious diseases.
Distinguish from crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods
The reason why the crime of obstructing the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases and the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods are 1: The protection of legal interests is inclusive 2. The similarity of objective behaviors. The legal benefit of the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods is the public safety interest of the unspecified majority. The Crime of Disrupting the Prevention of Infectious Diseases stipulates that in the chapter of “Disrupting the Order of Social Management”, the punishment for severely disrupting the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases and causing the spread of infectious diseases is to maintain the order of social management. However, the behavior that causes the spread of infectious diseases does endanger the life and health of the unspecified majority of people, so there is a certain inclusiveness between the protection of the two interests. Objective behavior is manifested in deliberate refusal to implement prevention and control measures, such as concealment of physical conditions, failure to report travel history and personnel contact history, and refusal to perform prevention and control measures at home.
The “Two Opinions”, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice’s “Opinions on Punishing and Preventing Crimes against Pneumonia Caused by New Coronavirus Infection According to Law” (hereinafter referred to as “Opinions”) will stipulate patients and pathogen carriers of newly diagnosed new coronavirus infection pneumonia Or, it is suspected that the patient refuses isolation treatment or leaves the isolation treatment without authorization, and enters a public place or public transportation to constitute a crime of breaching public safety in a dangerous way. The author believes that the regulations have not accurately grasped the essence of crimes of breaching public safety in a dangerous way and clarified the boundary between the two crimes.
First of all, in the crime of “violating public safety through dangerous methods”, one cannot stand from the standpoint of hindsight to see whether the perpetrator is a high-risk person such as a patient diagnosed with new coronary pneumonia, a suspected patient, or a close contact person. Before the actor realizes that he has the risk of transmitting an infectious disease, he cannot be expected to realize that the act of refusing to implement the epidemic prevention and control measures will result in harm to public safety. The perpetrator did not intentionally spread the infectious disease to infringe public safety, so he could not be regarded as a crime of breaching public safety in a dangerous way.
Secondly, the crime of endangering public safety should infringe the social interests of the life and health of an unspecified majority of people, so the criterion for its judgment is not that patients with new coronary pneumonia enter public places or public transportation, but whether it will cause the spread of new coronary pneumonia Dangerous results. For example, entering public transportation and other places after taking protective measures will not jeopardize public safety. Although the Opinions are intended to limit the scope of punishment for crimes that endanger public safety through dangerous methods, they are one size fits all practices, and the judicial judgment rules should be refined on the premise of accurately characterizing crimes that endanger public safety.
There is a view that the crime to prevent the prevention of infectious diseases and the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods are competing laws, and this statement is biased. The cooperation of laws and regulations requires the legal interests to be identical. Although the protection of legal interests between the two crimes is inclusive, the application of a single crime cannot fully evaluate the illegal content of the criminal act. Therefore, if an act complies with both the crime of obstructing the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases and the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods, it is an imaginary competition and should be punished by a serious crime.
Distinction from criminal obstruction of official duties
Although both crime of obstructing public affairs and crime of preventing and controlling communicable diseases are stipulated in crimes of obstructing social management order, the crimes of obstructing public affairs does not reflect the danger of the spread of infectious diseases or the serious spread of the social order. It is because its means have been upgraded to violence, threats, which has seriously disrupted the order in which state personnel perform official duties according to law. Therefore, the subject of the action is a natural person and is not limited to high-risk persons such as patients diagnosed with new coronary pneumonia or suspected patients. The key to the crime of obstructing public affairs is to determine the scope of staff of state organs and public acts in order to accurately grasp the crime. In practice, when the perpetrator refuses to carry out the prevention and control measures of the staff of the state organ to the level of violence and threats such as scratching the face and neck, smashing the mud and fisting the head, he will use impediment Official crime is investigated. If the perpetrator's use of violence, threats to obstruct official duties becomes a crime for crime against the prevention of communicable diseases, he should be punished from a serious crime.
3. Conclusion
For a long time, the crime of obstructing the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases has not been properly applied, resulting in the expanded use of the pocket crime of “crime violation of public safety in a dangerous way,” improperly expanding the attack surface and the intensity of the attack. Activating crimes that interfere with the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases refines the judicial rules under the premise of grasping the characteristics of the crimes, clarifies the boundary standards of the crimes involved in the epidemic situation, and comprehensively regulates the crimes of refusing to implement the prevention and control measures, which is to improve the ability to prevent and control according to law Important means. At the same time, compliance with epidemic prevention and control measures is a legal requirement, and it is also the responsibility of every citizen. Only by working together and actively cooperating with epidemic prevention and control measures can we win the blockade of epidemic prevention and control!