Research On The Pattern Of Complicity’s Crimes

In the field of criminal law, the theory of joint offense is one of the most important and the most complex issues. Research on the issues related to joint offense has always been the focus and difficulty of criminal law in every country so much as that one Japanese scholar claimed that "complicity is a chapter of despair". Therefore, the selection of joint offense is no doubt a topic of great theoretical value. Criminal law scholars in China study the theory about crime number basing on a general premise as a personal crime, and hardly deal with the theory about crime number of joint offense, especially the criteria for judging the crime number of joint offense is almost a blank. In practice, a number of complex criminal cases are often related to joint offense, but the research on the theory about the crime number of joint offense is thin that it is difficult to provide effective guidance for Judicial practice. In practice, the judiciary pays little attention to the difference between the crime number of joint offense and personal crime so that it is difficult to account the crime number of joint offense correctly, not to mention the accurate conviction and sentence. Basing on the present situation, from the basic theory of joint offence, this essay analyses deeply the distinction between personal crime and joint offense as well as the criteria for the crime number of joint offense and put forward the theory about subordinate standards that constitute the crime to resolve the problem about the crime number of complicity through defining the related patterns of joint offense and crime number. Besides the preface and balance, the full text is divided into five chapters.The preface mainly introduces the basic theory about complicity. Complicity is a concept of multiple connotation and denotation. Firstly, it is necessary to clear the meaning and usage of certain concepts, such as accomplice and principal offender, narrow accomplice and broad accomplice, principal offender and implementer, to avoid unnecessary controversy and provide with the basis for drawing lessons from German and Japan. Secondly, after studying the scale of joint offense and the characteristics of accomplice, this essay establish the idea of partly joint offense and the characteristics of accomplice subordinate to principal offender as the basis to define the existence of accomplice which are also the key factors influencing the crime-number of complicity.ChapterⅠmainly introduces the fundamental theory of complicity. Complicity is a concept of multiple connotation and denotation. In order to study the crime-number of complicity, first of all, it may need to clear the meaning of certain concepts, usage, and some basic theory of complicity in order to avoid unnecessary controversy. The article firstly discusses the distinction between principal offender and accomplice in Germany and Japanese criminal law. Through the comparison with the related theory in our country, this essay illuminate "complicity and the principal offender", " narrow complicity and broad complicity ", "principal offender and implementer" and other related concept which lays the foundation for learning from foreign criminal law theory.ChapterⅡdiscusses the theory of complicity’s crime number, the focus of which is the criteria of crime number. After inspecting the theories about crime number at home and abroad and analyzing the impact factors which decide the crime number, this article brings forward the theory about subordinate standards of crime constitution. The main content is, on the one hand, deciding the crime number of complicity must be on the basis of crime constitution the same as separate crime. On the other hand, deciding the crime number of complicity must be based on the premise of the establishment of a common crime which is particularly crucial to narrow complicity. During the process of deciding the crime number of complicity, complicity must be understood under the premise that joint offense came into existence. In addition, the crime number of complicity is not only decided by the complicity himself, but also decided by the implementer which is just the meaning of subordination.ChapterⅢdiscusses the complicity’s imaginative joinder of offences including the imagnative joinder of offences of organizing offender, joint principal offender, abettor and aider. Compared with the imaginative joinder of offences of single crime, the complicity’s imaginative joinder of offences bears many charactoristics. Firstly, from an objective point of view, we must decide whether the acts of all the offenders compose a joint offense because the joint offense is an organic combination of the facts of all the offenders which is the premise of the complicity’s imaginative joinder of offences. Secondly, from the imputation point of view, there may be many various kinds of complicity such as organizing offender, joint principal offender, abettor and accessory in a joint offences and they are relatively independent which make the complicity’s imaginative joinder of offences more complex than the imaginative joinder of offences of single crime. Finally, from a subjective point of view, the establishment of complicity’s imaginative joinder of offences demands that every offender is of intent to the crimes which the joint offense committed.ChapterⅣdiscusses the aggravated consequential offense of complicity. The focus of aggravated consequential offense of complicity is whether the others is responsible for the heavier result when more than two actors jointly implemented one specific crime and a person or persons of them caused the heavier result for which the Penal Code provides for heavier criminal penalties than the basic penalty. Based on the concept that the joint offense is limited to intentional crime as well as the two types of aggravated consequential offense, the aggravated consequential offense of complicity includes two types:on the occasion of "the intentional basic guilty+ intentional aggravated consequence", all the offenders composes joint offense towards the heavier result; on the occasion of "the intentional basic guilty+negligent aggravated consequence", all the offenders don’t compose joint offense towards the heavier result. When we study the aggravated consequential offense of complicity, the scope about the establishment of joint offense is different because of the different type of aggravated consequential offense which make the problems necessary to solve are of great difference. In the two occasions, the later involves more problems and is more complex which is the emphasis of the aggravated consequential offense of complicity.ChapterⅤdiscusses the complicity’s continuing offense. The focus is the contents of common intent, the continuing joint act and the affirmation of joint offense. The establishment of the complicity’s continuing offense requests not only the narrow complicity possesses the continuing same intent but also the intent must be displayed by the implementer’s acts. Moreover, the narrow complicity must give real impacts to the continuing malefactions during the process of the implementer implementing crime. Otherwise, the narrow complicity doesn’t compose the complicity’s continuing offense.The end section analyses the complicity’s plural crimes. By the cognizance of plural crimes at special circumstances, this essay gives a further review of the theory about subordinate standards of crime constitution and points out some noteworthy problems when we apply this theory in judicial practice.