Comparison Research Of Conspirator

Conspirator, including three cases: conspiracy but all don't embark on crime, conspiracy but someone embark on crime, conspiracy and all embark on crime. For these three cases, criminal law scholars in China to research more on civil law country, for example Japan. In recent years, some scholars have begun to study similar problems in common law, but not in depth. In this paper, by comparing civil law and common law approach on this issue, analysis of the compatibility of our criminal law system, propose the view that it is no need to quote relevant provisions of the American criminal in current stage. This article is divided into four parts:Part I: Japan on the provisions of conspirator. This section analyzes the situation of Japan's treatment of conspirator. Focus on the concept and history of collusive co-perpetrator, the argument of collusive co-perpetrator and the difference between collusive co-perpetrator and Accessory, Abettor.Part II: The United States on the provisions of conspirator. This section analyzes the situation of the United States treatment of conspirator. Focus on the concept and history of conspiracy, the constructive factors of conspiracy and the argument on conspiracy.Part III: The similarities and differences between Japan and the United States on the provisions of conspirator. This section based on the difference between civil law and common law, analysis the similarities and differences between Japan and the United States on the provisions of conspirator.Part IV: China on issues related to the provisions of conspirator and the study of the relevant countries. Fist, the section introduce the provision of conspirator in China. Then compare the similarities and differences between China and Japan, the United States on the provisions of conspirator.Last, the section propose the view: study the theory of collusive co-perpetrator in Japan is benefit for us to explain why some conspirators don't have committing act but as perpetrator and in current stage it is no need to quote relevant provisions of the American criminal.