The Study Of Causality Error In Criminal Law

Causality error is a very important issue in field of our nation’s criminal law.Causality error is usually associated with crime or non-crime, This crime or othercrime, attempt crime and crime consummated issues. Therefore, the imputation ofhuman conduct has significant meaning and great values both to the theory field ofCriminal Law and the practice of judiciary. As there is no relevant provision in ournational Criminal Law and at the same time there exists many controversial issues forCausality error issue generates lots of divergences in the field of judicial practice,breeds legal risk and undermines the legal authority, which makes the legitimaterights of perpetrator and the victim are not effectively protected.The general view of the academic circle thinks the theory of statutoryconformation is the best solution to deal with causality error issues. This articlecarries out a detailed analysis on the theory of specific conformation and the theory ofstatutory conformation by the use of comparative research methods and case analysismethods from the perspective of protecting of human rights and legal interests. Andfinds out that there is faultiness for the theory of specific conformation and the theoryof statutory conformation in solving the issue of causality error. The theory of specificconformation can only confirm an intentional accomplished offence when it totallymeet constitutive requirements. Due to the harsh conditions largely prevented theestablishment of an intentional accomplished offence, now there is few people intheorists advocates the theory of specific conformation. The theory of statutoryconformation effectively protects the interests of victims on legal interests and anagreement on the establishment of an intentional crime consummated can be settledwhen it is in line with legal constituent elements. The threshold for the establishmentof an intentional crime consummated is low and also there is no careful analysis onthe intention of taking dangerous actions, no concrete analysis on specific issues,which makes it likely to become a reasonable excuse for the abuse of the criminal law,easy to damage the interests of perpetrator and also influence the functional role ofcriminal law of human rights protection. This article deepens the understanding of Causality error issue and the subjectiveand objective constitution of Causality error case type by making a comparativeanalysis of Causality error issue from a overall and partial perspective, by analyzingour nation’s current theoretical viewpoints as well as viewpoints of Germany andJapan criminal theories and by learning more about Causality error issue and itssubordinate concept,In anticipation of intentional, and related theory on the resultsachieved ahead of schedule. This article makes a detailed analysis on theimplemented actions of the perpetrator in the case type of antecedent intent and itsintention behind actions involved. And finds out that if using unified standard forimputation of the implementation of risk behavior of perpetrator under differentintention, there will be biases between the balance of interests of the perpetrator andvictim and the best balance between the function of protecting human rights and legalinterests will not achieved. And any kind of rational scientific theories and methodsshould seek the best balance between the function of protecting human rights andlegal interests.Based on the view of the two functions of protecting human rights and legalinterests criminal law. This article ties to find out the reasonable and deficiencies ofeach doctrine and the best way to solve the issue type of Causality error by analyzingour nation’s as well as the theoretical viewpoints of Germany and Japan academy ofcriminal law. By making a breakdown analysis of the implementation of perpetratoractions and its intention behind actions, it is found out that in this kind of case,according to the perpetrator’s intention, we should make a classified discussion ondifferent consequence that comes form first action and second action under differentkinds of intention. Of course, conducting a deeper exploring of perpetrator’s intentionneeds support of sufficient evidence in judicial practice activities. This was done notsimply to provide a theoretical excuse for the crime of the perpetrator, but to makedeliberate evil acts of the perpetrator’ more distinctly displayed in front of us bysubdividing the intention, so that the criminal intent of the perpetrator has nowhere tohide. Those perpetrator whose criminal intent is not malignant deserves a mitigatedpunishment. This not only makes the fairness, acceptability and authority of the laweffectively implemented but also makes a perfect balance between the function of protecting human rights and legal interests. And also the rights of the perpetrator’s gotproper protection while being castigated.