Research On Several Questions About Criminal Amount

As a social condition, crime has two aspects including quality andquantity, the quality is social jeopardy of conduct, the quantity is the degree ofsocial jeopardy. As far as economic crime, crime of property, crime ofcorruption, crime of drug be concerned, the social jeopardy is the account ofcertain article related to crime conduct. Crime amount is important factor thatdecides the quantity in our criminal law, which is an evitable choice becauseour criminal law stipulates quality and quantity at the same time. Crimeamount is very important in distinguishing between a crime and an illegalconduct. Our criminal law stipulates many crime amounts, but it has noconcept of crime amount. Therefore we should study the concept, category andfunction in conviction and sentence. Based on this problem, the authorconcludes the crime amount of our criminal law, and discusses theidentification of crime amount in a joint offense, moreover make someproposes to better our legislation. This article contains five parts:Chapter 1 discusses the present legal conditions of crime amount. As animport part of criminal law, crime amount has been concerned in manycountries'criminal codes. But they have different meanings and functions.Russia criminal law that includes criminal amount is the leading case that itmake criminal amount the basement of fine, which is worth of being learned.Germany and Italy is the leading case that it not only includes criminal amountbut also have the meaning of litigation process. In Japan, the criminal law hasnot something about criminal amount, but it tried to interpret that light illegalconduct should not be stipulated as a crime by using some criminal law theoryelse. The legal tradition of China is that the criminal law of China stipulates inplain text that a crime should be determined based on a certain quantity.Chapter 2 is about the conception and category of criminal amount. Thereare many different conceptions, the author takes in reasonable component andfigure out personal opinion. In term of category of criminal amount, theauthor understands from three angles.Chapter 3 is about the effect of crime amount on the degree of convictionand sentence. First, in terms of conviction, crime amount is one of theobjective criteria to distinguish crime from innocence and felony frommisdemeanor. We call the amount to distinguish crime from innocence basicamount, and the amount to distinguish felony from misdemeanor aggravateamount. The effects of crime amount on the conviction vary according todifferent prescriptions. Second, crime amount plays an important role indeciding the degree of conviction. This point can be understood from twospecific aspects. In terms of the orientation of conviction, the conviction extentof the money-related economy crime, property crime and corruption crime isusually determined by the amount of money, i.e. different crime amountscorrespond to the conviction extent, so once crime amount is confirmed, theconviction extent is confirmed accordingly.Chapter 4 is about the cognizance of crime amount in co-crime. As apeculiar type of crime, the cognizance of crime amount in co-crime shouldfollow particular regulations. The prescriptions of the crime amount inco-crime according to related judicial explanations before the revision of theConstitution in 1997 is introduced first. These prescriptions are made for suchspecific crimes as co-corruption, co-theft, co-smuggle, etch, and the actualdisposal principles for these crimes are different. Corresponding to theseprescriptions, various viewpoints about the cognizance of crime amount inco-crime have aroused among criminal theorists, which include the theory ofrake-off amount, the theory of share amount, the theory of participatingamount, the theory of criminal total amount, the theory of average amount andthe theory of integrated evaluation. In this chapter, these theories areintroduced and analyzed respectively.Chapter 5 is about the status of the crime amount in our present criminallaw and the suggestion for its improvement. Although the prescription ofcrime amount in the 1997-revised Criminal Law is much more improved thanthat in the 1979 edition, the legislative prescriptions and judicial explanationsfor the crime amount in the present Criminal Law are still problematic. Forexample, the way of prescribing crime amount is deficient; the prescription ofcrime amount causes disharmony within the Criminal Law; the self-limitationof crime amount prevents it from completely reflecting the harmful influenceof individual crime on the society; the cognizance of crime amount affects theefficiency of criminal litigation; and the standard of crime amount lags behind.These series of problems have close relationship with the complexity of crimeamount itself. Thus the solution is a process involving the way of prescriptionand the realization of definitude of the Criminal Law itself. It does not meanthat we are helpless towards these problems. It is only because the probing oftheory always has its limitation, and our cognition is also to some extent right.However, we should not give up the endeavor. Therefore, in hope of makingsome achievements facing such complicated problems, the last part of thepaper makes some suggestions for improvement: to unify the criminal...