Not As Some Problems Of Crime

Though the criminal punishment of offense of omission has the permanent history, the theoretical development of offense of omission is very late. As we all know, the conduct of criminal law can be divided into two kinds of basic forms: action and omission. Because what can be emphasized in the criminal law is action, but omission (especially non-pure omission ) isn't provided in criminal law in many countries. Under this circumstance, how to punish offense of omission in judicial practice for a specified crime becomes a question that is worth research. In this article, author wants to explain some important theories for people. This essay contains four parts. Each part will be discussed as follows.Part I is mainly discussed the differences of offense of pure omission and non-pure omission. In this part, author wants to tell people four questions. First, many different theories about the differences of pure omission and non-pure omission will be displayed. Second, it is theory critique. Third, we will discuss differentiation standard and method of omission and action. Finally, some concrete and distinct differentiation will be explained. In this part, there are two things that must be emphasized. According to differentiation standard, it is to see whether people implement their law duty. As for differences between action and omission, there are many aspects, such as objective and subjective things.Part II is mainly discussed norm structure of offense of omission. Author thinks the norm structure of offense of omission refers to the relation between offense of omission and norm of the criminal law. As we all know, offense of action breaches prohibitive norm of criminal law; offense of pure omission breaches commanding norm of criminal law. But the thing that offense of non-pure omission breaches can't be said easily. Author believe offense of non-pure omission breaches commanding norm ofcriminal law. In fact, we must say what are written in criminal law embody two aspects; offense of pure omission and offense of non-pure omission.Part III is mainly discussed duty sources of criminal. Author thinks duty sources of criminal refer to the reason of action duty which is the focus of action duty. In this part, author wants to tell people two aspects. First, what is researched is previous behavior. According to previous behavior, we will talk about reasons, terms and scopes of previous behavior which causes action duty. Second, morality can't be the reason of action duty, because it contradicts with criminal law in our country.Part IV is mainly studied causation of omission. Through research of causation of omission in criminal law theory, author provides that it is a kind of determination in value meaning. It is derived from notion of criminal law based on " doctrine organization" .author maintains that in spite of the same characteristics as perpetration causality it has its own particular features. First, if we want to ascertain causation of omission, we must regard the person's particular action duty as the premise. Second, omission itself can't cause consequence of endanger society. It must combine with other factors if we want to cause the result.