A Study On Issues Of Accomplice In Identity Crime

There not only remains numerous theories around the issue of status criminals and accomplices,but also has been discussing in different territorial legal unit for a long time and hitherto reached no authentic consensus.Trace to its cause,the issue of status criminals and accomplices includes both status and accomplices,and different theories with different horizons always integrate in the same judgement of this area in the perspective of criminal theories,punishment theories,conception of premise,externality etc.Whereupon to some extent,this issue intensively embodies the chaos caused by the confusion between horizon and domain in criminal jurisprudence.The theoretical plight in this issue can't be solved authentically whether to focus on status criminals or accomplices for not only the different viewpoints in construction of criminal jurisprudence system but also more importantly the divergence of a wide range of opinion in grasping the predisposition idea and understanding the externality which has been neglected or skated over in existing thesis.Thus,it would rather reform systematically and radically the involvement of its horizon and domain than discussing valuably around it.Antithesis always has an important influence on the theoretical construction of criminal jurisprudence like Facts and Values and Ontology and Normology especially in the issue of status criminals and accomplices which is a visualize representation of these antithesis as“stance”of conception of premise of it.As a matter of fact,accomplice in narrow sense itself acts the handlungsunwert that is worth of criminal evaluation on the one hand,and it is also necessary to evaluate the participants based on regarding the joint offense as a complete normative fact on the other hand.The two approaches respectively grasp different value facts while the antithesis derives from criminal jurisprudence combining various disparate criminal phenomena into the conception of “crime” instead of the“congenital” structure in it,and the contradiction in punishment basis of accomplice can be reconciled by classifying and treating according to the characteristics of crime.Analogously,as for the way to understanding“status”,it can be comprehended as a causation of actual consequences and as a broken social bond.They are the assurance of different aspects of value facts instead of the confliction of antinomies,and thus the status should back to the level of code of conduct and judgement and consider the application based on the requirement of “conduct” of person with different status in reality and criminal law.The purposive rationality of criminal law stem from realizing requirements for social governance through criminal law,and therefore,the comprehend of externalities of criminal law direct influence the evaluation of some treatments “reasonable or not” of the issue of status criminals and accomplices.In our society today,it is not befitting to interpret the“community” in which criminal law stands and faces from a single comprehension way,and liberalism,communitarianism and other comprehension way correspond to the “portion” of society respectively.Although conceptions such as “legal interest”,“obligation” and “order” is clear both from the connotation and extension,it often ignores a key issue-these concepts in different contexts are confronted with completely different problem consciousness.This means that it may not be able to meet the requirements of purposive rationality of our criminal law though signifier and signified of these conceptions in external theory are accurately appropriated and utilized locally.That is to say,the crimes involved in the issue of status criminals and accomplices may be highly similar in different jurisdictions,but the system and the community exist different expectations for the subject in reality,and established in specific provisions of criminal law of our country,it categorization distinguishes crimes that are primarily directed against the order of life,crimes that are primarily directed against communities and institutions,crimes mainly aimed at the perfection and development of the system itself,and different ways of handling status criminals and accomplices are applicable respectively.The substantive tendency of the theory of crime means that it can no longer acquire Ought only from its own definition system,but on the construction of the theory of status criminals and accomplices,it should take full account of the external factors of criminal law and get rid of the restraint of “standpoint”.On the normative nature of status criminals and accomplices,We should take the “predicate” in the norm as the center,and take the “actual” code of conduct given by the provisions of criminal law rather than the complete idea as the criterion to be used as the main body of what kind of crime criteria,namely,when there is more than one code of conduct that can be described for a certain line of the perpetrator,the code of conduct corresponding to its status and the corresponding adjudication standard should be applied.To distinguish the principal and accomplice in the joint crime of status criminals,it should combine the theory of obligatory crime and the theory of domination of facts,and judge from different levels of “the development logic of things themselves” and“institutional expectation”,namely,a no-identity may be a principal because of the domination of facts in some crimes while a identity according to the type of the corresponding crime can see whether his status carries certain institutional expectation and then decide if he must be a principal.As for whether the no-identity can constitute the indirect principal criminal of status criminals,in essence,it is still the issue of whether the limitation of status in the corresponding crime can be understood as special obligation and to what extent it is special obligation in the social and political sense,which should be typed in the specific provisions.What the theory of punishment is concerned with ought-to-punish of the perpetrator means that the core of it is the perpetrator instead of the conduct.And it also should be materialisierung and typisierung on the balance of crime and punishment,to those who have committed different crimes and those with differ-identity for the same crime based on the ought-to-punish of the perpetrator to contrast punishments,namely,the balance of crime and punishment should investigate the realistic ought-to punish of the perpetrator in concrete accusation instead of considerate as a purely objective “conduct”.On principal and accomplice,the principal/accomplice and prime/accessory should be dealt with in two levels,and the former corresponds to the domination of the fact and the breach of obligation,and the latter corresponds to the magnitude of the effect.Generally speaking,those who complete the domination and violate the obligation play a greater role,but this is not an absolutely necessary relationship.In the category of principal/accomplice,the substantive consideration of the effect of the “perpetrator” should still be carried out,meanwhile,in different types of crimes,the criterion referred to the comparison of the effect in the participants should be vary according to the expectation of the criminal law for the perpetrator.