The Accomplice Of Accomplice

Joint crime is a common form of crime, but also a complex social phenomenon, which has the characteristics of multiple and complex. As a result, throughout history till today, it plays an important role in the national criminal legislation. In the field of research of criminal law, it’s also a major and difficult issue. In judicial practice, joint crime is one of frequent occurrence of crime. As the organization and socialization of crime, the internal organizational structure of the joint crime is becoming more and more complicated, and often encounter some knotty accomplices. Under the black-society nature crime, there is the strata crime, such as abettor of abettor, accessorial crime of accessorial crime, abettor of accessorial crime, accessorial crime of abettor etc. In criminal law, this phenomenon is often referred to as accomplice of accomplice, or the chain of accomplice. In current judicial practice, the practice for such crimes is to dilute the treatment or commit light punishment, e.g. tending to focus on the acts committed against him, but neglected the punishment or committed very light of abettor of abettor, accessorial crime of accessorial crime, abettor of accessorial crime, accessorial crime of abettor, which led to the law unjust, or even incompatible with the phenomenon of crime and punishment.At present, the studies of theory of joint crime have focused on joint criminal responsibility, the number of crimes, crime patterns. However, marginal theory of joint crime-accomplice of accomplices, scholars of criminal law in China have studied very weak, it can be said to have not set foot in, it must be said that is a major shortcoming of theory of joint crime. To change this phenomenon, and better protect the legitimate rights and interests of people, I sprouted the idea of researching accomplice of accomplice. At the same time, this also helps create complicity with Chinese characteristics, to fill an accomplice theory of the system of our country, thus further improving our criminal accomplice theory. In addition, in judicial practice in China, this phenomenon has not aroused the attention of judges, in many joint crime, more subjective malignant tissue, instigator practice not implemented because of their behavior, are often sentenced to death row implementation, and is always committed to implement the death penalty immediately. This is clearly contrary to the principles of crime fit. To this end, researching theory of accomplice of accomplice has strong historical significance and practical significance.Accomplice of accomplice names beteigung an der teilnahme in Germany, and the scholars of German who first researched the theory. Subsequently, Japan draws on the experience of German criminal law, and begin to study this theory; in South Korea, some scholars has done the research of forms of the accomplice of accomplice. As the complexity of accomplice of accomplice, some countries and regions has provided this in its Criminal Codes to better his conviction and sentencing of accuracy. Up to now, Japan is still an accomplice of the criminal law provisions of complicity. In Taiwan, some scholars have conducted research. The new criminal law of its provisional and will be an accomplice of the old Penal Code has been the pattern of an accomplice were to be enumerated, and to provide for specific forms of punishment, but this new line of criminal law has been repealed. In china, the crime law of PRC does not provide it.As the characteristics of community and organization of joint crime, this dissertation uses a method of criminal sociology, structuralism and other methods to research the accomplice of accomplice. In addition to "Introduction", the dissertation is divided into three chapters:ChapterⅠthe definition of accomplice of accomplice, ChapterⅡthe types of accomplice of accomplice, ChapterⅢconcepts and technology of replacement of accomplice of accomplice.To pave the way for the dissertation, the part of introduction, in accordance with the features of society and internal structure of organized crime, and so it combined with the author’s practical experience in criminal, points that our criminal legislation ignore the reality and hazards of organizing crime, and proposes the organizing crime should be committed to the scope of joint crime, so as to better research accomplice of accomplice; at the same time, according to the domestic and international legislation under the penalty joint crime and the research of scholars, sorts out the situation of research of accomplice of accomplice. In addition, the reality of criminal organizations having not yet established, this dissertation uses criminal sociology, structuralism, etc. to research theory of accomplice of accomplice. ChapterⅠmakes use of comparative method, to define the standard of accomplices of accomplice. and on the basis of the definition, the dissertation differentiate accomplice of accomplice into nine types, namely, organizing crime of organizing crime, accessorial crime of organizing crime, organizing crime of abettor, abettor of abettor, organizing crime of accessorial crime, abettor of accessorial crime, accessorial crime of accessorial crime; at the same time, discusses the characteristics accomplice of accomplice, that is subsidiary, independence and derivative.ChapterⅡbased on the concept of accomplice of accomplice, the dissertation use the methods of comparison and structuralism to research the nine types of accomplice of accomplice. Every type of accomplice of accomplice will be discussed on features, form and pushment.ChapterⅢdiscusses the possibility, necessity and effectiveness of replacement of accomplice of accomplice in the aspect of ontology, epistemology, methodology and practice theory. The replacement of accomplice of accomplice is a kind of concepts and techniques that confirms status, identity and criminal charge of accomplice of accomplice during the judicial process. From the perspective of criminal justice, an the case of accomplice of accomplice can be divided into simple and difficult ones. In simple cases, the judge need not resort to the basic norms, the basic theory and the social fact of which justifies the normative legitimacy of adjudication. However, in difficult, complex cases, because judges can not deductive, inductive, and so on, and set the legal method permits to achieve the proper decision, but must exchange ideas and technology with a card stand on the validity and effectiveness of judges. This chapter will introduce the application of the methods of criminal hermeneutics, precedent and judges’ majority in the replacement of accomplice of accomplices, in particular, examine legitimacy and effectiveness of the theory of legal arguments in the replacement of accomplice accomplices.