Negligent crime - kasithan

This refers to cases where an act committed through negligence becomes a crime. Legally, "negligence" is explained as a failure to exercise the duty of care. In principle, crimes are committed intentionally, and negligent crimes are punished only in exceptional cases when there is a special provision, such as "by negligence" (Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code). There are two types of negligent crimes: negligent crimes under the Penal Code, which will be described later, and negligent crimes under special laws such as the Road Traffic Act. A typical example of negligent crimes under the Penal Code is a crime that infringes on a person's life or body through negligence. There have traditionally been crimes of negligent injury, negligent death, and professional negligence or gross negligence resulting in death or injury, but in 2007 (Heisei 19), a new crime of negligent driving resulting in death or injury was created as a special type of professional negligence resulting in death or injury (Article 211, Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code). Other negligent crimes under the Criminal Code are often stipulated as crimes against social interests, such as negligent fire, negligent explosion of explosives, negligent damage to buildings, negligent endangerment of traffic, etc. In addition, since aggravated crimes with results are generally the combination of intentional crimes and negligent crimes, they are a type of negligent crime in terms of serious results.

Meanwhile, while punishment for negligence was traditionally considered to be the exception, with the development of science and technology and the advent of a dangerous (risk) society, negligent crimes have come to be seen as a typical example of "modern crimes." In particular, with the increase in traffic crimes, professional negligence resulting in death or injury has come to rank among criminal offenses, and as mentioned above, the crime of negligent driving resulting in death or injury has been newly established, and in the area of ​​administrative criminal law, negligent crimes are widely punished alongside intentional crimes. Furthermore, lively discussions have been held about the determination and recognition of the negligence liability of corporations and their officials in cases of pollution and corporate disasters, for example.

In response to these social changes, a major conflict has arisen over how to understand "negligence." This is the "new and old negligence debate." In this debate, lively discussions have been held on which of the two elements of the duty of care should be emphasized, the duty to avoid (prevent) the result, and the duty to foresee the result (the foreseeability as a prerequisite), and on whom the standard should be used to judge. However, in both positions today, it is necessary to satisfy objective and subjective elements, just as in the case of intentional crime, in order for a negligent crime to be established, so the duty to avoid the result and the duty to foresee the result are considered to be indispensable elements of the duty of care. Of these, when it comes to the duty to avoid the result, administrative regulations such as the Road Traffic Act can be an important reference for judgment, when dangerous activities such as road traffic are widely carried out. In addition, regarding the duty to foresee the result, the degree of foreseeability required in the causal process from the act to the result has been debated, but according to current precedents and the majority opinion, it is interpreted that specific foreseeability is required for the "basic or important parts."

[Tetsuro Nawa]

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

過失により行われる行為が犯罪となる場合をいう。「過失」とは、法的には注意義務を怠ることと説明される。犯罪は原則として故意犯であり、過失犯は、たとえば「過失により」といった特別の規定がある場合にのみ例外的に処罰される（刑法38条1項）。過失犯には、後述する刑法上の過失犯と道路交通法など特別法上の過失犯とがある。刑法上の過失犯は過失によって人の生命・身体を侵害する罪がその典型であり、従来から過失傷害罪、過失致死罪、業務上過失または重過失致死傷罪があったが、2007年（平成19）に業務上過失致死傷罪の特別類型として自動車運転過失致死傷罪が新設された（刑法211条2項）。それ以外の刑法上の過失犯としては、失火罪、過失激発物破裂罪、過失建造物等浸害罪、過失往来危険罪など、社会法益に対する罪のなかに多く規定されている。なお、結果的加重犯は故意犯と過失犯を結合した場合が一般的であるから、重い結果については過失犯の一種である。

　ところで、従来、過失の処罰は例外的であるとされてきたが、科学技術の発達や危険社会（リスク社会）の到来によって、過失犯は「現代型犯罪」の典型とされるようになった。とりわけ交通事犯の増加に伴って、刑法犯のなかでは業務上過失致死傷罪が上位を占め、前述のように自動車運転過失致死傷罪が新設されるとともに、行政刑法の領域でも過失犯が故意犯と並んで幅広く処罰されている。さらに、たとえば公害や企業災害などをめぐって、法人企業やその役職者の過失責任の判断や認定について活発な議論が展開された。

　このような社会の変化に対応して、「過失」をいかに理解するかにつき大きな対立が生まれてきた。「新旧過失論争」がそれである。この論争では、注意義務の要素とされる結果回避（防止）義務と結果予見義務（その前提としての予見可能性）について、いずれに重点を置くべきか、また、だれを基準として判断すべきかなどが活発に議論されてきた。しかし、今日では、いずれの立場においても、過失犯が成立するためには、故意犯の場合と同様に、客観的および主観的要素を満たすことが必要であるから、注意義務の要素として結果回避義務と結果予見義務とは必要不可欠であるとされる。このうち、結果回避義務については、道路交通など危険な活動が広く行われる場合には、道路交通法などの行政取締法規が一つの重要な判断資料となりうる。また、結果予見義務に関しては、行為から結果に至る因果経過において、どの程度の予見可能性を要するかが争われてきたが、今日の判例や多数説によれば、「基本的または重要な部分」について具体的な予見可能性を要するものと解されている。

［名和鐵郎］

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例