On The Scope Of Abettor' Criminal Responsibility

This paper expounds on the issue of the scope of abettor's criminal responsibility. The so-called the scope of abettor's criminal responsibility, includes not only whether the abettor should shoulder the responsibility, but also how much the abettor should take.If we want to probe into this issue, the first problem is the evidence of the abettor's criminal responsibility. Therefore, the first part of this paper comments on the evidence of the abettor's punishment. In this part, I first introduce the current theories of the evidence of abettor's punishment; most are the theory of accomplice responsibility, the theory of social complete infringement, the theory of valueless behavior provocation and the theory of provocation, which also includes the theory of sheer provocation and the theory of amending provocation. The disputes are in closed connection with each country's practical situations, and mostly with different ideas on the judgment of convictions. Our country's constitution of crime is a closed one, which means you commit a crime once fit in the constitution of crime. So from the general theory of criminal responsibility, the paper conies to the conclusion that the abettor commits the abetting crime in his own will, which is in accordance with the amending constitution crime. Consequently, it provides the theoretical evidence for the fact that whether the abettor should take the criminal responsibility.In the second part, I mainly comment on the nature of the abettor which has four characteristics: subordination, independence, twoness and abandonment. The paper elaborates the first three theories in detail, emphasizing on different opinions. From the point of subordination, I narrow the scope of abettor's criminal responsibility, but Independence overstates that. Twoness, on the first hand, lays on the foundation of the provisions of Criminal Law, and on the other, is consistent with the principle of the objective and subjective, which is scientific and reasonable. The paper supports the abettor's twoness theory, which regards that the abettor subordinates to the abetted in the aspect of joint crimes, establishes of specific offences, the suspended situation of the intention crime, and the degree of measurement of punishments: however, correspondingly, the above aspects are independent from the nature of the abetted. Therefore, the abettor's subordination and independence are dialectical unity. The measurement of punishments, which can't neither be in full accordance with a committed, nor can ignore the impact of the committed on the abettor's criminal responsibility.The scope of abettor's criminal responsibility is a problem of extension and expansion, in theory, we may define the abstract, but in judicial practice, the specific situation should be specifically analyzed. Basing on whether the abettor and abetted establish the joint crime, it can be distinguished as "establishment of abettor's independent crime" and "the abettor's joint crime", in accordance with the clause one and two of item twenty-nine in our present criminal law, respectively discuss the scope of abettor's criminal responsibility, which forms the third and fourth part of this paper.The third part of this paper focuses on the establishment of independent crime of abettor's criminal responsibility. However, what's "the abetted doesn't commit the abetting crime", because our Criminal Law doesn't make the stipulation clearly, so we have a lot of room to explain. Generally speaking, it includes four situations: the abetted refuses the abettor; though the abetted receive the abetment at that time, later he refused to commit the crime; the abetted receive the abetment then, but what he commits is not what he is taught; when the abettor abet, the abetted has already had intention to commit crime. However, many other conditions still should be taken into account:first is that the abetted committed over the deadline, in this case, it should be divided into causality and non- causality. The second is that the abetted does not catch the meaning of the abettor, so he does not commit offence, this case should be combined with the means, contents, as for the conspicuously minor case, it can be handled without punishment. The third, after the abetment, some other malice occur to the abetted and leads to the same consequences and then the abettor only has to take the criminal responsibility of undone abetment. The fourth, the abettor mistakes delinquency as offence to instigate, which belongs to the error of cognition in law and does not change its non-criminal nature, therefore this abetment is not proved.The fourth part focuses on abettor's criminal responsibility in joint crime. According to clause one of item twenty-nine of Criminal Law: the abettor should be punished in accordance with the role he plays in joint crime. That is, the punishment of the abettor should not be transformed on the basis of the committed, but according to whether the major or minor role he plays, it can be regarded as culprit, accomplice or the coerced. While the complex of the abettor's criminal responsibility lies in the indefinite factors such as, the suspension of intent crime, error of cognition, performance over the deadline and the form of quantity of crime, etc, and all of these will exert influence on abettor's criminal responsibility. It is a laborious project to state every factor in detail, and this paper selects several representative or atypical problems to discuss. First, the impact of the error of cognition on the abettor's criminal responsibility. The error of cognition in law does not exclude the intent in joint crime, in fact, it is much more complex and the paper here gives detailed elaboration. Second, the impact of performance over the deadline on the abettor's criminal responsibility. Generally speaking, the abettor does not take criminal responsibility for the part that is beyond the scope of joint intent crime. Third, the abetted reduces the impact on the abettor's criminal responsibility. This paper elaborates on three situations, such as reduce of the abettor's number, the lessening of the nature and the abetted not committing the crime. Fourth, the impact of the abetted establishing the consequential aggravated criminal on the abettor's criminal responsibility. This paper divides the abetted consequences as the intent and negligence, for the former, which also considers whether the consequential aggravated criminal is based on the abettor's abetment. Fifth, the impact of forming the transforming criminal on the abettor's criminal responsibility. Generally speaking, when it belongs to the integrated transforming criminal, the abettor becomes the accomplice of the joint crime; partial transforming can be decided upon whether the offence is beyond the content of abetment. The sixth, the influence of the discontinuance for crime on the abettor's criminal responsibility. The abettor can suspend crime independently or together with the abetted. But so far in china, the criterion for the abettor's individual suspension is too harsh. The paper considers that before the harmful consequence happens, the abettor willingly suspend abetment and make sincere amendment for the occurred harm, as long as it dissolves the relationship of joint crime, it can be regarded as the suspension of conviction.