A Study On Determination Of Legal Responsibility In Intentional Co-injury Crime

Intentional co-injury is quietly hackneyed in judicial practice, the judicial authority hold disagreement in handling this kind of cases, and have controversies of humanness conviction and penalty measurement of co-injury crime in circle of judicial practice, what's more, different prejudication occurs in various regions, which goes against unity and fairness of justice. In light of this situation, the judicial practices in our country cry for directing accurate application of intentional co-injury by scientific and united recognition of it presently, in order that the judicial authority can remove the confused situation existed in process of applying this crime.In this thesis, the author, through contrastive research, relative basic theory of Criminal Law and combination with judicial practices, takes this as a breakthrough point to emphasize on expositing responsibility confirmation of participants in intentional co-injury crime based on analysis of formation and expressive form of intentional co-injury crime, and analyzes several special situations existed in confirming this problem, furthermore, puts forward his own understanding and handling opinion on different situations of intentional co-injury crime appeared in judicial practices, attempting to offer a scientific and reasonable referential basis to the judicial authority.This thesis is divided into 4 chapters apart from introduction and conclusion:The first chapter refers to judicial confirmation of intentional co-injury crime. In this chapter, the author states how to confirm intentional co-injury crime correctly by 2 aspects of expositions: formation and expressive form of intentional co-injury crime. Intentional co-injury crime means a behavior that more than 2 people mutually conduct illegal harm to other's physical health under the psychological domination of intentional act of co-injury. Intentional co-injury crime, in the first place, is registered as joint crime, whose subject must be more than 2 people with criminal liability ability, and have intentional act of co-injury subjectively. It is complex to confirm deliberate joint crime, in judicial practices, joint crime is confirmed by whether each penal defendant has premeditated before implementing hazardous behavior. Objectively, each co-perpetrator is requested to have criminal behavior, which is objective basis of the criminal liability under the responsibility of co-perpetrator. In light of dividing expressive form of joint crime, the author divides it into 2 types: implementing criminal and joint criminal in non-implementing behavior.The second chapter refers to 4 principles of determination of legal responsibility in co-injury crime. The first principle conforms to one consistent with common crime, namely the object and the subject accord with each other. A significance of distinguishing individual crime and joint crime lies in the principle whether implementing the whole responsibility partially is carried out. On condition that implementing the whole responsibility partially is carried out, each co-perpetrator should be treated distinctly, and then the principle, self-charged responsibility for an offence, can be really put into practice in process. Practically, we must see to it that we should convict a crime and measure a penalty separately through comprehensively applying each principle and according to the role that every perpetrator plays in joint crime, instead of applying only one principle to handle one case.The third chapter is the focal point of this thesis. In this chapter, the author mainly discourses accurate confirmation of intentional co-injury crime reliability. In connection with mistakes existed in trial practice, the author divides intentional co-injury crime into 2 types: premeditated intentional co-injury crime and temporarily-intended intentional co-injury crime, and respectively makes exposition on how to accurately confirm reliability of intentional co-injury crime. It is emphasized that the joint crime participants, who puts forward intention of crime but doesn't participate in the whole process of crime, compared with people who initiates crime intention and plots way of crime but doesn't carry it out, are usually confirmed as principal criminal; while people who just participate in joint plot but doesn't carry it out are ordinarily confirmed as accessory criminal; people who participate in joint plot, but play unimportant role and doesn't carry it out, can be confirmed as if an act is obviously minor, causing no serious harm, is therefore not deemed a crime. However, if behavior of the joint participant, who implements exact crime, exceeds the premeditated sphere, it should be specifically analyzes whether the joint participant, who puts up with intention of crime, should be responsible for the result. In the exposition on reliability confirmation of temporarily-intended intentional co-injury crime, the author makes a stressful exposition on several problems commonly existed in practice, and thinks that language is relatively general when gathered person musters others, under the circumstance that bust-up is not clearly stated, it depends on attitude and objective behavior of the gathered person towards the developing situation afterwards and the exact situation of that time. If the co-perpetrator doesn't intend to make joint injury, and doesn't anticipate the definite injury result, for example, if a common unarmed mass bust-up causes severe consequence, the perpetrator, who causes direct consequences and the initiated person can be convicted of intentional co-injury. However, other participants are not suitable to be convicted of intentional co-injury commonly. Without injury consequence, the initiated person and the active participant, in event of involving important composed documents of gathering bust-up, can be convicted of crime of gathering bust-up. Meanwhile, the author, in this chapter, makes a stressful exposition on reliability confirmation of incidental civil matters part of each co-perpetrator in intentional co-injury cases.The forth chapter also plays an important part in this thesis. In this chapter, the author emphasizes on discoursing reliability confirmation of several special intentional co-injury situations existed in current social practices. It started with exposition of unilateral complicity problem, stating that unilaterally helping the co-perpetrator also belongs to sphere of joint crime. The author, meanwhile, makes detailed exposition on excessively-implemented behavior in intentional co-injury crime cases which are seriously disputed at present, stating that whether the behavior of each perpetrator belongs to joint crime depends on whether each perpetrator holds joint behavior joint intention and, especially the later. Finally, the author makes detailed anatomy on how partial criminals realize ceasing crime in joint crime, which is focally debated in circle of Criminal Law theory, respectively discoursing confirming standards of fixing each crime ceasing pattern from 4 types of joint crimes: organizational crime, implementing crime, assistant crime and abettor crime.In conclusion, the author hopes to relieve controversies about nature and penalty measurement of co-perpetrator in practice and, to further facilitate unity and fairness of justice through researches of reliability confirmation of intentional co-injury crime.