A Study On The Successive Accomplice Perpetrator

First, according to the discussion on the definitions and the conditions of successive accomplice perpetrator, and the various representations of the scholars, this thesis considered successive accomplice as these kinds of conditions: in the crime while the first actor was committing crime, the second actor communicated with the first actor and wanted to commit crime together, and then the second actor committed crime alone or with the first actor. Secondly, the thesis discussed the conditions of finding the actor guilty. As a special kind of accomplice perpetrator, successive accomplice perpetrator is a type of crime with a certain kind of criminal character. The conditions can be generalized into the following aspects:the first actor carried out the crime without finishing it, the first actor had communicated with the second actor on joint offence, and the second actor committed the crime with the first actor or alone later.Thirdly, the thesis analyzed the types of successive accomplice perpetrator. According to the different characteristics and standards of successive accomplice perpetrator, it can be generally divided into the following types:According to the crime characters of first and the second crime, it can be divided into similar crime successive accomplice perpetrator and the transformed crime successive accomplice perpetrator.According to the differences between crimes with and without the second actor, it can be divided into single crime successive accomplice perpetrator and several crimes successive accomplice perpetrator. According to the results of the crimes with or without the second actor, it can be divided into ordinary successive accomplice perpetrator and surplus successive accomplice perpetrator.After analyzing the fundamental questions, it is necessary to deeply study the successive accomplice perpetrator and the related concepts on their differences and their expressions in different crimes, and then to discuss the different theories both home and abroad.In the single crime, the second actor took part in the crime halfway makes a successive accomplice perpetrator, with the exception of afterwards accomplice, while in the plural crimes, it should be discussed individually.This thesis generally discussed the successive accomplice perpetrator in the following conditions:continuous offence, continuing offence, implicated offence, combinative crime and absorbable offence.Concerning the successive accomplice perpetrator, there are mainly three theories, which are positive theory, negative theory and the restrictively positive theory.These three theories are rational from some aspects. For example, the negative theory seems to deny that the successive accomplice perpetrator can make a joint offence apparently, while confusing the raps a successive accomplice perpetrator should take with the existence of joint offence.This thesis discussed the raps a successive accomplice perpetrator should take after discussing the fundamental problems of successive accomplice perpetrator, and it mainly talks about the following issues: first, the confirmation of the criminal responsibility. Second, the raps a successive accomplice perpetrator should take.and this is mainly about the following aspects:If the second actor takes part in the crime with the conscious of joint offence, is the second actor a successive accomplice perpetrator? And should the second actor take the rap for the whole crime? And should the second actor take the rap for the whole crime? if the first actor accomplishes the crime partly which aggregated the offence, and the second actor accomplishes the left part alone or jointly, is the second actor a successive accomplice perpetrator? And should the second actor be responsible for the surplus offence? In this thesis, the raps that the second actor should take is judged by the unity of the subject and the object, and the principal of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime.If the second actor take advantage of the first actor with the clear knowledge of it, and the behaviors meet the conditions of being a successive accomplice perpetrator, it is a successive accomplice perpetrator, and the second actor should take responses for all the crime.If the second actor took part in the crime without realizing it, then it is not a successive accomplice perpetrator, and the second actor should not take responses for the crime.And if the second actor took part in the crime with the knowledge of it, but the first actor accomplished more crime, then the second actor should not take responses for the surplus results caused by the first actor.