Study Of One-sided Accomplice

This article is about the important problem of one-sided accomplice. When it comes to one-sided accomplice, there has been controversy for a long time in penal law field, and there have been different opinions and theories. Some scholars argue that one-sided accomplice is joint crime. On the contrary, others hold that one-sided accomplice is not joint crime. The former theory is called the affirmative theory, while the latter is named the negative theory. The author disagree with the opinion of the affirmative theory and think that it's improper, he don't agree with the view of the negative theory either, and believe that it's too arbitrary. In the author's opinion, one-sided accomplice should be treated as accomplice, but he does not acknowledge simply that one-sided accomplice is joint crime.The author first introduces the concept of one-sided accomplice, so that readers may have a clear and precise idea about it. In order to understand one-sided accomplice, we should know the concept of it first, only in this way can we master the basic character of one-sided accomplice in appearance, and have a clear idea about it. One-sided accomplice is a form of crime that one knows clearly that other person is committing a crime and then he take part in, but the latter does not know. The author then introduces two different theories about one-sided accomplice respectively, that is, the affirmative theory and the negative theory. And introduces their main opinions and reasons, and the various views and differences of the scholars who hold the affirmative theory about the basic types of one-sided accomplice. The scholars who hold the negative theory think that joint criminal intent should be bilateral, not unilateral, so one-sided accomplice does not fit the essential character of joint crime. While the scholars who hold the affirmative theory believe that unilateral association is also essential association. In the second chapter the author analyses the above two theories, states their reasonableness and shortcomings. Next, the author put forward his opinion, he holds that one-sided accomplice should be treated as accomplice, and states this from several aspects: first, the same essence determines that one-sided accomplice should be treated as accomplice; second, the legislative intention of joint crime determines that one-sided accomplice should be treated as accomplice, that is, the same legislative intention determines that one-sided accomplice should be treated as accomplice; third, the principle of suiting punishment to crime determines that one-sided accomplice should be treated as accomplice; fourth, the aim of criminal punishment determines that one-sided accomplice should be treated as accomplice. Among the above four aspects, the first one is emphasized.When it comes to the basic types of one-sided accomplice, there are various opinions, too. The author believes that there are one-sided executor and one-sided accessory, but there aren't one-sided instigator and one-sided organizing offender.Most scholars hold that one-sided accomplice should be treated as accessory in joint crime, however, the author doesn't agree. He believes that as far as joint crime is concerned, it is judged according to the function of joint offenders when judicial conference investigates into their criminal responsibility. To one-sided accomplice, there also exists the problem of their function in a crime. Their function may be major or minor, not always minor. One-sided accomplice should not be all treated as accessory, that is improper, and may make very serious mistake and result in serious consequence. So one-sided accomplice should be treated and punished according to their function.