The Study Of The Question Of Omission Attempted Crime

Omission is an important problem in the theory of criminal law, since its inception inattracting the attentions of many criminal scholars. Omission divided into pure omission andomission, the former refers to the provisions of the criminal law and only as the crimecommitted, the latter refers to as guilty usually committed by positive crime. Scholarsbelieve, pure omission does not exist attempted, which is the basis of arguments in this article.Impure omission has attempted crime problem. However, scholars have rarely this specialstudy. Author write this issue, to integrate theory, analysis of the theoretical issues, andcombine practice in the specific case. The author hopes that by impure as guilty of attemptedexplore cause academic attaches to this issue, and can guide practice.Part one: Impure omission, not as guilty refers to as guilty usually as the crimecommitted,not pure as guilty of attempted there are certain: First, an intentional crime,including a direct intentional and indirect intentional; Second, The crime of statutorypunishment for more than three years; Third,“Accomplished said” of Context acts committedand results guilty. It should be stressed that there are two points: First, author insists that thereexists indirect intentional attempted, mainly because the existed indirect theory that thesubjective aspect deduce from the actual results has logical loopholes. In addition, the textindirect intentional psychological divided into permission and laissez-faire, the former is theexistence of the attempted crime; of Perilous behavior committed a Dangerous Criminalsdivided into specific Dangerous Criminals and abstract Dangerous Criminals, the formerexist attempted, the latter does not exist attempted.Part two: Perpetrating Act of omission establishes the core of the crime, and the beginningof Perpetrating Act is not only the cut-off point between the preparatory stage and theimplementation stage, but set up point-in-time crime extremely attempted. Perpetrating Act ofomission is that the obligor does not fulfill the obligations though Perpetrating Act ofcomplicity omission is to be discussed in two aspects, positive act and omission form coprincipals, and second joint principal formed by omission. Dangerous state for both law of benefits to the concrete reality of the infringement proceeding standards.Part three: Subjective aspect of omission attempted, including cognition factor and willfactor. Cognition factors is the awareness of the main aspects of the key component of a crime,From a normative point of view, infringe regulation lay imputation basis for willfactor,namely, a violation of the law. From the content, will factor seek or permit harmfulconsequence. Attempted willful act as subjective aspects need to use judicial presumptionidentified. Reasons beyond the will and not finish act as other elements of attempted, it is thereason elements and results elements for omission attempted. Reasons beyond will is thereasons other than the will of the obligor, including the objective reasons and subjectivereasons, to stop a crime to accomplish development process. Not finish as a result of elements,with the above conditions have not been complete constituent elements.Part four: This part mainly analyze case and deal with attempted special question.omission accomplice attempted is that the existence of meaning to contact the co-positiveprisoners, common does not perform as obligations of or one party does not fulfill obligationsother party actively the implementation of certain behaviors, lead to law benefits to beinfringed real danger of the state, but due to other than the will reason not finish. Indirectintention omission is that the obligor cognition of inevitable result occurred or is likely tooccur, and permit result of the occurrence of the harm, which is attempted attributable basis,awareness errors has effects on attempted. This article discusses both awareness and causalityerror impact on omission attempted.