A 15-year-old took his mother's Mercedes and killed a woman: why criminal liability may not follow
A 15-year-old in Zoucheng, Shandong, took his mother's Mercedes without permission to attend a classmate's birthday party and on the way home struck and killed a woman, then drove on; he gave himself up the next day with his mother. Because he was under 16 and the offence is not among those listed in Article 17(2) of the Criminal Law, he bears no criminal liability, but he and his guardian face a substantial civil claim under Article 32 of the Tort Liability Law.
On 23 July 2019 in Zoucheng, Shandong, a 15-year-old boy took his mother's Mercedes without permission to attend a classmate's gathering and, on the way home, struck and killed a woman and drove on. When the police contacted his mother, she went downstairs and found that neither the boy nor the car was there. She kept trying to reach him by telephone, but the calls went unanswered and the phone was eventually switched off.
The next day the boy, accompanied by his mother, gave himself up at the police station. He had just finished junior middle school. He said a classmate had had a birthday that evening and he had taken the Mercedes out to the party, and that the accident had happened only on the way home. It was very dark, there were main-beam headlights coming the other way, and by the time he realised there was someone in the road he was only two or three metres away. He braked at once, but the car could not stop in time. As to why he took the car out, he said he had loved cars since he was small and had watched his mother drive; after he took up go-karting he had driven karts all year round, and because he was good at it he assumed driving a car was much the same, which is how the accident came about. The police said that because he is a minor he may escape criminal liability, but that he faces a large civil claim for compensation.
The law
Article 17 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, headed "age of criminal responsibility", provides that a person who has reached the age of 16 and commits a crime bears criminal liability; that a person who has reached 14 but not 16 and commits intentional homicide, intentional injury causing serious injury or death, rape, robbery, drug trafficking, arson, explosion or the crime of spreading dangerous substances bears criminal liability; and that a minor who has reached 14 but not 18 and commits a crime is given a lighter or mitigated punishment. A minor between 14 and 16 is therefore liable only for those eight intentional offences. The boy here is 15, under 16, and the offence with which he is charged is not one of those listed in Article 17(2), so he bears no criminal liability, that is, no crime is made out.
Article 32 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, headed "liability of guardians", provides that where a person with no or limited capacity for civil conduct causes harm to another, the guardian bears tort liability, and that where the guardian has performed its duty of guardianship its liability may be reduced. Where such a person who has property causes harm to another, the costs of compensation are paid out of that person's own property, and the guardian pays the shortfall.
The boy therefore commits no crime, but his conduct caused loss to the victim, and he and his guardian should bear civil liability to compensate that loss.
Lower the age of exemption, or strengthen education on three fronts?
Many readers object to the outcome that he bears no criminal liability because he is a minor. The law does set an age of criminal responsibility, however, chiefly because a criminal act is not only socially harmful but also a conscious act, and a person's capacity to control and understand his own conduct is limited by age. Only when a person reaches a certain age, and has received a certain amount of social education and accumulated a certain amount of social experience, does he gain the ability to tell right from wrong and to control himself in action, so that he can be required to answer criminally for what he does. Minors are immature, their ability to discriminate is limited, their emotional and social development is incomplete, their conduct is easily controlled by emotion and swayed by others, and they act on impulse and see things incompletely, which makes it easy for them to take the path of crime.
Many readers suggest lowering the age of exemption. The problem, though, is that legal constraint and punishment alone can never be enough. Crime by minors is not a problem of the criminal law but a problem of the education the young person has received, and preventing crime by minors through education is more meaningful than lowering the age of criminal responsibility.
In the family, the parents' moral qualities and the way they educate all affect the development of a child's psychology, character and conduct. Most cases of crime by minors show that a poor family environment or improper methods of education is an important factor. Harmful influences at school and in society are another important cause, and short videos on the internet in particular often carry pornographic or violent material that readily affects the mind and body of minors and invites imitation.
Preventing crime by minors therefore requires society, the family and the school to work together. Only education on all three fronts can teach minors to tell right from wrong, form sound values and judge their own conduct correctly, and only sound education can stop crime by minors before it happens.