Main Accomplice Of Common Crime, Criminal Liability Study

Joint crime is the most highly controversial system in the theoreticalsystem about criminal law for the reason that it involves a large amountof complicated questions that are difficult to be interpreted coherently.However, each system under criminal law is designed on the basis of thesocial conditions under which the existence of the human being and itsdevelopment can be pursued, and there is no exception to joint crimesystem. It can be called the spirit of law under the guidance of which thelaw is interpreted to coordinates such factors as law and the present needsof human being. Therefore, once we are aware of the spirit of the jointcrime system we can grasp the key point and understand the wholesystem, furthermore, we are able to provide a straightforward and clearstandard to guide the juridical practice. In this thesis the author tries tobring to light the spirit of the joint crime system by means of analyzing. As we all know, it is a general rule that a criminal offence consists ofboth the Actus rea ( external elements) and Mens rea (state of mind ),butthe two sides do not carry the same weight according to differentscholars' opinions which can be summarized into Subjectivism andObjectivism. In author's opinion, we can have a deeper understandingto analyze the joint crime system and the criminal liability of the principaland the accomplice based on the subjective view. Although the social harm caused by crimes can be judged from thesubjective aspect and the objective one, the Mens rea plays a significantrole in designing a joint crime and in conviction. Why can a certain actionbe regarded as a crime? The convincing reason is that a certain prohibitedstate of mind that lies under the action is a great potential danger tosociety. In civilized society criminal law must penetrate into the minds ofthe criminal in order to be effective and useful. So the Mens rea ( guiltymind ) principle gets established in modern criminal law ,which is agrandeur contribution to human civilization and a monument of criminallaw's history. The most significant difference between joint crime and thecommon crime committed only by a person is the more evil minds of thecriminals who communicate and collaborate with each other and bringgreater social harm. The author reaches a conclusion that the spirit of thejoint crime system is to combat effectively against the collaborators. Theappearance of more and more complicated and indistinct offences in reallife, especially more joint crimes committed by criminal groups is a greatdanger to society, which justifies the law to establish some specialprinciple to discourage people joining together to commit crimes. Thisaim can be realized by the joint-enterprise liability, quiet different fromthe common liability principle. If there is a joint enterprise and two ormore people carry out their plan, a joint crime occurs and they will bejointly liable for each other's acts. On the other hand, the principle thatthe degree of punishment shall be commensurate with the crimecommitted and the criminal responsibility to be borne by the offender isstill underlined in joint crime system, that is to say, they may take ondifferent liabilities according to the respective social harm. In detail, aprinciple should take greater liability while an accomplice shall be givena lighter or mitigated punishment or be exempted from punishment.However, the author finds there are some defects in 1997 criminal lawand proposes some suggestions . The joint economic crimes can apply to the general principles of thejoint crime while the social harm can be measured directly by numbers, inanother words, the liability in joint economic crimes can be judged by theamount. The author introduces several opinions on this field and come upwith her own suggestions.