Study On The Number Of Crimes System

At present, the theory of Crime's Quantity is the most complicated one in the Criminal Law of our country. The cause of complication is that the judgment standard of crime's quantity is unclear. The Constitution of Crime has become the speaking of differentiation standard between One Crime and Plural Crimes long before. However, in the concrete operations, this theory is not perfect anyway. Especially, as explain the Implicated Offense, Continuing Offense and Absorbable Offense, academic circles cast severe blame on it. Beyond all doubt, these styles of One Crime are the most complicated parts in the system of the Crime's Quantity Theory, and also the breach of most difficult points on Crime's Quantity Theory. Implicated Offense, Continuing Offense and Absorbable Offense belong to One Crime or Plural Crimes after all? Criminal scholars dispute heatedly. Generally speaking, UK-US genealogy of law has no concept of Crime's Constitution, their legislation and judiciary practice attaches more importance to the Formal Justice, and they treat these crimes as Plural Crimes. Civil law countries are fitly contrary, their legislation thinks highly on Natural Justice. Considering the actual results of the judiciary practice, they treat Implicated Offense, Continuing Offense and Absorbable Offense as One Crime. Each country has its' own legal tradition, legal soil and legal culture, however, by comparing the pros and cons of two genealogies of law, we can come to some important enlightenment anyway: the Formal Justice of UK-US genealogy of law is not necessarily injustice, and the Natural Justice of Civil law countries indeed have many issues. Absorbing the reasonable component of external theory and discarding our own defects, Crime's quantity theory can be further improved.Conviction or sentencing all right, the ultimate aim is to achieve the perpetrators and transformation of criminals. In other words, Suiting punishment to crime is the highest goal of finding crime's quantity. Surely as Hegel said, there is only relative equivalence but not absolute contour, but as a country that higher judiciary expectation has been placed, our Crime's Quantity theory should have a minimum clarity and an excellent quality of rising to the criminal legislation. By treating Implicated Offense, Continuing Offense and Absorbable Offense as Plural Crimes our Crime's Quantity theory can adhere to the Constitution of Crime as the distinct standard between One Crime and Plural Crimes consistently, thereby simplifying conviction. "One Crime in Nature comes to one felony punishment" had not been written into the Principles of Criminal Law, besides, in what case should Plural Crimes be combinedly punished is also empty in the Principles of Crime Law, such conditions consequent to casual treatment of the quantity of crimes in specific provisions. In practice, aiming to achieve unity of justice, National People's Congress, the Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procurator ate handle the special matter particularly and frequently. Different legislative amendments and judicial interpretations on the same style of crime are developed successively. Despite the good intention, we did give the result of our Criminal Law more complex and increasing aversion. To improve our Criminal theory, we must establish the judgment and punishment standard as soon as possible.The theory of competing in Germany divides the complex styles of Crime into three categories: Essen Competing, Imaginative Joiner of Offenses and Competing of Provisions. The author believes that: Continuing Crimes are same crimes in nature, according with several constitutions, should be declared several crimes; Further stresses, combined punishing not necessarily leads to excessively long period of imprisonment and will not give too much pressure to judicial resources certainly. Firstly, China's Criminal Law has limited the maximum period of combined punishment; Secondly, the implementation of commutation, parole and other penal systems can help criminals to reintegrate to society; Thirdly, combined punishment can appease victims better and protect the benefit of Criminal Law; Finally, combined punishment does not deviate from Constitution of Crime, the distinguishing standard of crimes. Implicated offense constitute several different crimes, persisting the Constitution of Crime as distinguishing standard of such styles of crime, we should classify it into Plural Crimes' system. In the process of the same crime, the case of implementation absorbing preparation and accomplishment absorbing attempt belong to the area of the theory of deliberated crimes' stopping pattern. Another absorbing between main act and the subordinate act belongs to the theory of Common Crime. The Competing Joiner of Provisions entirely due to imperfect technologies on legislation, is a competing of version or evaluative competition in the administration of justice which is resulted from the competition of legislative provisions. In the sense of Constitution, the Imaginative Competition of Offenses should be classified to Plural Crimes. That being the case, whether should we put several punishments on them? If they are punished combinedly, whether the principle of "repeatedly commenting prohibited on one act" will be breached? What's the accurate connotation of the principle "repeatedly commenting prohibited on one act"? How many principles does the Crime's Quantity Theory have and what they are? How arranged should be these principles? What concrete styles do One Crime and Plural Crimes have? What's the relationship between Crime's Quantity and Criminal Responsibility? What's the relationship of Combined Punishment and The System of Crime's Quantity? To solve these problems is the purpose of my writing this article.