The tenth academic salon for PhD students at Southeast University School of Law was held on October 15, 2021, via Tencent Conference Online, with a paper presentation by Jiaqi Lin, a PhD student of Class of 2020, entitled Criminal Law Attribution of Hazardous Acceptance. Dr. Ji Yang, Associate Professor of Southeast University School of Law, and Dr. Wei Chao, Lecturer of Soochow University Wang Jian School of Law, were invited as special guests, and Ruan Chenxin, 2018 PhD student, Liu Jin and Tong Snan, 2020 PhD students, were invited as reviewers.

At the beginning of the salon, Jiaqi Lin gave a brief report on the paper for this presentation, including the framework of the article and the specific development of the argument.

After that, the reviewers made a detailed and full review of the paper.

The reviewer, Tong Snan, pointed out that the reporters argued that the legal order does not impose special obligations on the actor beyond the role, and that if the actor's perception and ability are lower than the standard that the role should meet, then it should be imputed as a mistake. However, the standards of social roles are very formal and abstract, and there is no need to adopt such a broad social role theory. The representative scholar who supports the role theory is Jacobs, and Jacobs' role theory is heavily influenced by Luhmann's idea of normative expectation. According to Luhmann's role concept, to achieve normativity of behavioral expectations, a minimum degree of abstraction in the context of expectations must be assumed. He distinguishes four levels of meaning from low to high abstraction: personality, role, program, and value. In a society of acquaintances, expectations are primary based on personality. However, in a society of strangers, such expectations are difficult to exist, and it is necessary to abstract roles. By trusting the role, people's normative expectations are solidified. However, some rules are set independently of personality and role, and any person or role must comply with them, and this is the program. Values are the most abstract, not concrete rules per se, but they guide the construction of programs. Therefore, in Luhmann's theory, the expectation of roles is not decisive. None of us can escape from our most basic social role - that of a member of a social community. Whether we are firefighters, engineers, or waiters, we are first and foremost members of a social community. When we have superior cognition beyond our role, the legal order is justified in imposing obligations on us according to our actual capacity. Moreover, it is worth discussing whether the actor's cognitive ability is below the standard that the role should meet, and whether it should always be imputed. It is necessary to distinguish between the instrumental capacity of the body and knowledge and the normative capacity of the sense of respect for legal interests, which should be adopted as the standard of the actor, and the standard of the general public as envisaged by the law.

In the opinion of Liu Jin, there are two points in the report paper that need to be further discussed: 1. It is doubtful whether the theoretical presupposition of the article can be met, as it must be presumed based on external criteria to determine whether the victim meets the requirement of autonomy. 2. In fact, the right to life is indeed more protective than dignity, even if the victim does not think so. And the law, as a tool of evaluation, can not interfere with the disposition of the victim's own personal legal interests, but it is never simply to protect this freedom of the victim. After all, the law also carries the common values of society. It is possible not to interfere, but it should never be promoted, and even restrictions should be placed on this freedom of disposal of the victim.

Reviewer Nguyen Chenxin pointed out that the reporters' article is more complete, with profound theoretical skills, and is able to use German theory to explain relevant issues. The article has its own innovative points, of which the second part is the highlight. However, the title could be more problem-oriented and the diagrams would be more appropriate in the body.

Dr. Wei Chao, the reviewer, pointed out that the acceptance of danger can be divided into the participation of one's own danger and the danger of the other based on consent, the former is not controversial, but Dr. Jiaqi Lin's paper seems to make no distinction. Secondly, in response to Dr. Lin Jiaqi's rebuttal to the theory of accomplice, Dr. Wei Chao believes that any theory can not only incriminate, but also criminalize. The accomplice theory is based on the reason that there is no accomplice without an accomplice and that even if the perpetrator participates in his own dangerous participation, the crime should not be established. In addition, according to Dr. Jiaqi Lin's view, even if the victim is autonomous, the special obligor may still be guilty of the crime, so why can't it be blocked at this point? Finally, the article's content such as legal interest relationship wrongly said belongs to deceived victim's promise, which is not the same as the situation of dangerous acceptance.

Associate Professor Ji Yang pointed out that the connotation of the concept of dynamic legal benefit needs to be further clarified. Secondly, recognizing victim autonomy, it is necessary to explain why life is not included in the scope of victim commitment. Finally, what is the relationship between breach of duty of role and breach of duty of care for negligent offenders?

After the discussion, the salon moved to the free discussion stage, where Li Feihong, a doctoral student of class of 2021, argued that the fireman case and the Memel River case are the same, and if we think that the victim can commit to his life, then there is no legal interest worthy of protection by the law. In this way, when the person doing the experiment at home is ready to burn to death, and the person crossing the river is ready to be drowned, there is no legal benefit worthy of protection in these two cases, and the perpetrator, no matter what he does, cannot satisfy the result element of the crime. The crime is committed even if there is no result.

Lin Jiaqi responded fully to the questions raised by the reviewers and participants in the free discussion session, and further discussed the relevant issues in depth. At the end of the salon, Associate Professor Ji Yang summarized everyone's views, and the speaker, Jiaqi Lin, expressed her gratitude to everyone, and the salon was successfully concluded.