On Reconstruction Of Causation-judging Standard In Criminal Law

The issue of causation conclusion in criminal law can be described as a constant topic. The debate on its criteria for judging is long-standing, such as condition theory, the theory of proper causation, dual contingency theory, objective imputation etc. At present, the objective imputation theory in Germany has aroused a wave of research enthusiasm, making the issue of causation study in criminal law enter a new phase, the theory has two aspects including the determination of objective imputation and regulate imputation. The emergence and development of imputation theory result from that in many cases causal theory can not be given for the results attributable to the full argument. In Japan, there is a huge influence on the doctrine which is a very causal relationship, the formation are different factions because of the different perspectives to the "relative". But many scholars think that the relative causal theory is the imputation theory, rather than the original sense of the causal theory, that the condition theory can only be used to determine a purely causal relationship.Looking at Two Schools of causal relationship between criminal law theories, we found that there is something in common behind the different criteria for judging, whatever doctrine affirmed the criminal law of causality judgments in fact, and the factual levels of judgments can not be escaped.After years of discussion, most scholars believe that China's criminal law and philosophy on the causal relations should be distinguished, but the specific ways in which we do not form a unified doctrine. At present, many scholars propose that China should introduce foreign objective imputation theory, but because the theory itself is complex and subject to further precipitation, therefore, the introduction of the theory can not be completely copied. In China, cause and effect relationship is generally considered an objective basis for criminal liability, the Causal relations and the Causal relations judging Standards are two different concepts, the former is purely objective, while the latter, in addition to objectivity, it also need to add value judgments, the need for attribution services.The author of this paper claim that both the factual level and the value level (or named normative level) as a whole judge the cause and effect relationship in criminal law. The factual levels of causation, including two parts—condition judging and relative judging. The latter making a positive assessment from behavior to results, based on the probability of sense of people's experience, thereby limiting the scope of the reasons for behavior. After factual judging, we should make the normative judging of the causal relationship in criminal law, which is distinct from other sectors of the Criminal Code Act.Criminal Law can not be separated to determine cause and effect relationship between norms, it has always been based on the specific provisions of the Criminal Code , and its end is a violation of criminal law duty of care to act and the other side is a result, the value of linking these two is the content of criminal law norms protection purposes, only the violation of norms to protect the purpose of criminal law and the violation of criminal law duty of care created a risk of the perpetrator would be guilty of criminal law of causality, such an outcome that may be attributable to the perpetrator is the harm results.In this paper, empirical and comparative research methods are used. To determine the specific causal relationship, this paper borrowed systems theory, combined with the rule of things-awareness, making the process to determine causation step by step, and the scope of behavior reduced layer by layer, resulting in the possible causes of behavior will objectively be limited to a relative small range at last.