The Research Of Impure Inactive Commitments

Everything is integration with contradictions, so does the deeds in the sense of criminal law, which have two kinds of active deeds and inactive deeds. The author thinks that inactive deeds by impure inactive committers who have behavior are representation forms of criminal deeds. Inactive commitment in criminal law means not implementing some active deed ruled by criminal law. There are pure and impure inactive commitments. Active commitments violate the forbidding items in criminal law; pure inactive commitments violate the commanding items. Pure and impure inactive commitments both violate the commanding regulations. The commanding items violated by impure inactive commitments coexist with the forbidding items in a judging specification system, but the commanding items violated by pure inactive commitments exist as a sole judging specification system. The differences expressed in the term of commitment constitution are: impure inactive crimes can be committed in an active or inactive way; but pure inactive crimes can be committed in inactive way only. Theory research on impure inactive crimes started in1800s, but up to now, the research is still full of controversies. Mainland legal system puts equivalence as the research core; and most Chinese researches are based on the obligations must be taken by inactive committers, and equivalence is rarely mentioned. In this thesis, firstly, the author expounds on the basic states of impure inactive commitment, sums up the definition as the follow: commit inactively the crimes which can be committed actively. This definition isn't proclaimed in the criminal law, just is summarized in general provisions, isn't definite. Secondly, the author analyzes the controversial emphasis in theory circle--the must-do obligations of impure inactive committers, and then fixes the roots, foundations of these obligations. In this part, the author tries to analyze another controversy--whether or not moral rules can be looked on as roots of obligations of impure inactive committers; if they are what are the differences between them and the obligations written clearly in the law? The author gives a negative answer, because the obligations asked by law are the lowest moral rules, what the law asks us to do are always what the moral rules asks us to do. But moral rules have a larger scope, what moral rules asks us to do aren't necessarily asked by the law. Thirdly, the author investigates explicitly on the rarely-mentioned question of equivalence, analyses its root, development, judging standards and how to be resolved in the current Chinese crime system. Also, the author analyses the connections between impure inactive commitment and the principle of "crimes must be regulated by the law", and analyses whether punishment on impure inactive crimes illegal. If is, would it be against the principle of "crimes must be regulated by the law"? If isn't, how should we solve the contradictions between them? Lastly, after analyzing international and national research in impure inactive crimes, the author puts forward some suggestions, and hopes that this article can do a little in pushing forward the research in impure inactive crimes, and offers some theory consultancies for legal practices.