On Joint Cirme Of Aggravated Consequential Offense

Joint crime of aggravated consequential offense is one of the problems of hot debate in ourcriminal law educational world. Because it is related to the theory of aggravated consequentialoffense, joint crime and negligent crime, it is a very difficult issue. Many scholars at home andabroad have studied this issue deeply, but train of thought and emphasis are different. It may besaid schools of thought contend. From my point of view, to study the issue of joint crime ofaggravated consequential offense, it can follow the idea of "find problem-analyze problem-solveproblem".In order to solve the problem of joint crime of aggravated consequential offense, it isnecessary to define the concepts of aggravated consequential offense and joint crime ofaggravated consequential offense. Clearing up the question is the first step to answer the question.At present, there are two kinds of concepts of aggravated consequential offense, generalizedconcept and narrow concept. Generalized concept is too big and dose not accord with theregulations of our criminal law. So the narrow concept is more appropriate. Aggravatedconsequential offense means the actor conducts a basic crime intentionally which leads to anaggravated consequence, and the law regulates a more serious punishment because of theaggravated consequence. To be specific, aggravated consequential offense includes two types, oneis the actor intentionally conducts a basic crime and intentionally cause the aggravatedconsequence, the other is the actor intentionally conducts a basic crime and negligently cause theaggravated consequence. Correspondingly, joint crime of aggravated consequential offense meansseveral people intentionally conduct a basic crime together, during this process, one or some ofthem make the aggravated consequence actually occur, and the law regulates a more seriouspunishment because of the aggravated consequence. When several people intentionally conduct abasic crime together, one or some of them caused the aggravated consequence intentionally, thereare not many disputes. However, when one or some of them caused the aggravated consequencenegligently, who are responsible for the aggravated consequence and why are very controversial.This paper will analyze these two questions and try to find the answer. At present, in the study of joint crime of aggravated consequential offense, domestic scholarsmainly concentrated on two aspects. One aspect is when several people conduct a basic crimetogether and some of them cause the aggravated consequence directly which results in moreserious punishment, whether people who conduct the basic crime together are accomplices. Theother aspect is allocation principle of criminal liability, especially the criminal liability of peoplewho do not cause the aggravated consequence directly. We can classify the study of domesticscholars into two kinds based on train of thought. One is traditional accomplice relationship idea.It suggests using accomplice theory to solve the problem of joint crime of aggravatedconsequential offense. The other is a new idea that breaks through traditional accomplicerelationship idea. It suggests that other than accomplice theory we can use theory of negligentcrime and simultaneous crime to provide solution to the problem of joint crime of aggravatedconsequential offense. What is traditional accomplice relationship idea? To sum up, whetherpeople who conduct basic crime together are accomplices decide whether they are responsible forthe aggravated consequence. If they are accomplices, people who did not cause the aggravatedconsequence directly should bear criminal liability; on the contrary, if they are not accomplices,people who did not cause the aggravated consequence directly are irresponsible.Following traditional accomplice relationship idea would lead to the lack of punishmentgrounds. Criminal Law of China article25:"Joint crime refers to two or more people conductcrime intentionally together." It means, when several people conduct basic crime together andsome of them cause aggravated consequence negligently, in the area of aggravated consequence,they are not accomplices. Then the problem is there is no theory to support the criminal liability ofpeople whose behavior did not cause aggravated consequence directly. However, in reality, personwho did not cause aggravated consequence directly is likely to have major causal relationshipwith aggravated consequence. It may be substantially unfair if they are not punished for causingaggravated consequence. How to reconcile the conflict between the need to punish and lack oftheory grounds? A useful way is to fully understand our accomplice system and referencebeneficial experience of foreign criminal scholars.In Japan, some criminal scholars use accomplice theory as a tool to research joint crime ofaggravated consequential offense, similar to traditional accomplice relationship idea in China. Thedifference is Criminal Law of Japan dose not limit joint crime to joint intentional crime leavinglarge space of discussion of joint crime of negligent crime. Therefore, Japanese scholars often study joint crime of aggravated consequential offense along with joint crime of negligent crime,and make similar judgment to both. In Germany, criminal scholars not only use accomplice theorybut also negligent crime and simultaneous crime theory to solve the issue of joint crime ofaggravated consequential offense which supply reference to our study of joint crime of aggravatedconsequential offense.According to above analysis, the view of this paper is that people who did not causeaggravated consequence directly should be responsible for aggravated consequence, the reason isthe subjective and objective of his behavior. In strict accordance with the provisions of CriminalLaw of China, when several people conduct basic crime together and some of them causeaggravated consequence negligently, in the area of aggravated consequence, they are notaccomplices, they are accomplices only in the area of basic crime. So joint crime theory could notbe the reason making people who did not cause aggravated consequence directly undertakecriminal liability, we can try to search the reason in negligent crime and simultaneous crimetheory. Aggravated consequential offense is a special type crime. Criminal law stipulateaggravated consequential offense to avoid the happening of aggravated consequence. Because thebasic crime contains a high risk of aggravated consequence. Therefore, when several peopleconduct basic crime jointly, there is a big possibility that they make aggravated consequence occur,they should try their best to avoid it from happening. When they do not pay fully attention, theyare negligent; When aggravated consequence happened in reality, their behavior caused dangerthat is not allowed. This is why people who did not cause aggravated consequence directly shouldbe responsible for aggravated consequence.In one word, when several people conduct basic crime jointly and some of them causeaggravated consequence negligently, our accomplice legislation and theory can not providetheoretical support to criminal liability. To solve this problem, as I consider, we can adopt thethinking of unilateral path. That is, the reason people who did not cause aggravated consequencedirectly should be responsible for aggravated consequence relies in the subjective and objectivesituations of their behavior. When they are negligent and cause danger which is not allowed, theyare responsible for aggravated consequence.