On The Liability Of The Complicity In Terms Of Imputation And Culpability

Criminal liability fundamentally focuses on the issues of imputation and culpability. As a scholar has ever put it, "Acts and results exist objectively; and causation emerges between them…which is called the danger of acts i.e., the physical element of a crime. In a certain psychological or mental state, the actor is linked with his acts and their subsequent consequences in a certain way, which constitutes the psychological element of a crime. Liability serves as the integration of the physical element and the psychological element of a crime. The physical element belongs to the psychological element, which is called imputation; the latter undertakes the responsibility of the former, which is termed culpability. Liability unifies imputation and culpability."Except for the perpetrator, there may be some other participators in one crime, with the partnership habitually being termed "complicity". Although the complicity cannot solely constitute a crime, it is still holding criminal liability. But why is it? The Chinese scholars used to refer to the Civil Law System to construct the theory of the liability of complicity in China, while leaving the Common Law System out in the cold. Such negligence is no doubt a deficiency to the academic research. In the peculiar angle of view of the Common Law System, this dissertation hammers at the extensive theoretical research of the liability of complicity on the basis of the Chinese criminal law. According to the Common Law System, derivative liability serves as the nature of the liability of complicity; the concepts of incitement and conspiracy are parallel to the liability of complicity. Compared with the complicity of the Common Law System, the solicitor in the Chinese law is to be considered as a parallel concept to complicity; hence, the nature of complicity is also derivative in the Chinese law. After a review of the historical theories, such as the agency theory, the shadow theory, the contribution theory, the participating theory, the social harm theory on the constitution, and the integration of social harm and dangerous character, the researchers will come to realize that the justice of the liability of complicity lies in the integration of imputation and culpability. The conduct is the predominant demand for the imputation of the liability of complicity. Different from the principal, the complicity does not necessarily take any certain special conduct, but merely certain kinds of conduct. The Common Law System differs greatly from the Chinese law in the classification of the action of the complicity. Dissimilar to the omission, the theory of complicity does not require the defendant to have fulfilled obligation. No complicity exists in a pure omission; as for an impure omission, complicity could be distinguished from omission, when only prohibitive results, instead of specific conduct, are provided for by criminal law. In cases where the defendant neither shares the joint Mens Rea nor forms the relation of unilateral complicity with the other perpetrators, investigations are to be focused on the objective relationship between the conduct of the defendant and the offense itself. Omission is to be held only if the criminal liability of the offense could be ruled in virtue of the above-mentioned relationship; Otherwise, complicity is to be held. The imputation of the liability of complicity requires that, causation must be established between the complicity and the offense of the principal. In terms of the imputation of the liability of complicity, neither non-causation doctrine nor unnecessary-causation doctrine is correct. Rooted in free will, the non-causation doctrine holds that, since the principal's acts are volitional, they are not brought about by the complicity. Causation stresses the relationship between cause and effect. Since no causality emerges between the complicity and the conduct of the principal, the complicity cannot exert causality on the crime conducted by the principal. From the viewpoint of free will in psychology, the author advocates the belief that the principal's acts are not brought about by the complicity. In terms of metaphysics, however, free will does not exclude the causes of will. Causation is merely a sort of "mutual reaction"between affairs. Consequently, the causality between complicity and the outcome crime could not be broken off. In addition to the linear causation, various causes and their respective causal forces can even form a three-dimensional assembly. Only when causality is established, should imputation be realized, retributive and preventive to further offense. In this sense, unnecessary-causation doctrine is erroneous. The imputation of the liability of complicity must adhere to causation, which means, "without the acts of the complicity, the crime would not have taken place, at least not in the...