The Study On Capacity For Criminal Responsibility

As is stipulated in Chinese Criminal Law, the subjects of crime consist of naturepersons and units(units have possess the capacity for criminal responsibility fromestablishment to termination also). To constitute subject of subject, it is indispensablefor a natural person to reach the age for criminal responsibility and possess thecapacity for criminal responsibility. As for a natural person, criminal responsibilitygenerates from capacity for criminal responsibility. Accordingly, capacity for criminalresponsibility is amongst the subjective requisites of a crime and important parts incriminal theory system. No penalty without responsibility is the basic criminalprinciple of criminal law. Generally, only when the actor possesses correspondingcapacity for criminal responsibility, should he be forced to bear the criminalresponsibility for his dangerous conduct. Concerning capacity for criminalresponsibility, criminal laws of various countries do not set positive conditions butexclude possible negative factors. For example, Chinese criminal law only stipulatesthat a mentally ill person has no or limited capacity for capacity for criminalresponsibility, and that a mentally normal person has full capacity for criminalresponsibility. However, how can the capacity for criminal responsibility be defined?What is the criterion? How can one be called a mentally ill person? How can thecapacity for criminal responsibility of a mentally ill person be assessed? Answers tothe above questions differ in the fields of medicine, psychology and law because ofthe different standpoints.Based on the capacity for criminal responsibility in criminal laws of foreigncountries and Chinese traditional criminal theory system, the thesis discusses theconcept, nature and content of capacity for criminal responsihility as well as therelationship between capacity for criminal responsibility and criminal responsibility. Itdissertates the classification of capacity for criminal responsibility and substantivecriterions, and also the possible influential factors. Consequently, it puts forward thedefinition, assessing notion and related suggestions in hope of going deep into theresearch on capacity for criminal responsibility. The thesis consists of four parts.Part one is a general introduction of capacity for criminal responsibility. Itintroduces various stipulations of capacity for criminal responsibility in Common Law system, Civil Law system, Taiwaa law as well as the traditional Chinese criminal lawtheory. It argues that capacity for criminal responsibility equals to capacity forcrime-committing in nature. The complete concept of capacity for criminalresponsibility refers to the ability to recognize or control a certain conduct whichaccords with the qualifications of biology and psychology. Furthermore, the thesiselaborates the nature of capacity for criminal responsibility as well as the relationshipbetween capacity for criminal responsibility and criminal responsibility.Part two discusses the levels of capacity for criminal responsibility. The modernpsychopathology believes there exist interspaces between mentally healthy state andmentally ill state. Accordingly, diversity arises concerning levels of capacity forcriminal responsibility. The capacity is graded into three levels standarded on age andmental state, which can well reflect the fact of different capacity for criminalresponsibility. However, this grading has drawbacks; the writer argues that it would bemore complete and contributable to judicial application and enforcement to gradecapacity for criminal responsibility into six levels. Part three raises the criterion of assessing capacity for criminal responsibility.There are three assessing criterions concerning capacity for criminal responsibility:biological criterion (i.e. medical criterion), psychological criterion (i.e. judicialcriterion), and mixed criterion. Nowadays, most countries adopt mixed criterion;China adopts a twofold criterion.Part four discusses possible influential factors of capacity for criminalresponsibility. Age for criminal responsibility is amongst the important influentialfactors. In judicial practice, some scholars suggest lowering age for criminalresponsibility which the writer believes unwise considering the actuality of mentalmaturity of juveniles. Physiological factor is also among the important influentialfactors. Chinese criminal law assesses physiological defects merely according tobiological criterion, which the writer believes inconsistent with the inherentrequirements of capacity for criminal responsibility; psychological criterion shouldalso be considered. Mental factor also contributes to capacity for criminalresponsibility. Mentally ill persons rank from fatally mentally-handicapped patients(including psychopath in a narrow sense and mental stunt) to mildlymentally-handicapped patients. According to Chinese criminal law, any person whosemental illness is of intermittent nature shall bear criminal responsibility if he commitsa crime when he is in a normal mental state. The writer argues that the article isinsignificant and obscure to understand; it should be abolished for the perfection ofprecise criminal law.