The Application Of Responsibility Ideology In Death Penalty

Responsibility ideology of criminal law is the tide of modern criminal law. Punishment is based onresponsibility, without responsibility, without punishment. As a result, responsibility ideology is an opinionproposition, and it is also basic principle of criminal law. It dominates the function of criminal law, togetherwith the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime and principle of legal interestprotection. People should insist the idea that responsibility should be establishment requirements of crimeand foundation of criminal discretion. In other words, if there is no responsibility, there is no crime, not tomention punishment. In this way, can criminal law punish crimes, and realizes legal interest protection andcrime prevention simultaneously. As the severest punishment method in criminal law, death penalty shouldimplement responsibility ideology more thoroughly, so as to reach the policy requirements with the opinionof death sentence reduction and the method of cautious application of death sentence.In ancient society, death penalty was very popular for a long time. With the great change of modernscientific civilization and productive forces, human rights awareness gradually wakens. People’s attitudestowards the existence and abolition of death penalty have large differences. Early in the middle period of18thcentury, a famous criminal law expert Cesare Becalia in Italy mentioned the opinion that “the abuse ofdeath penalty had never changed people from evil to good” in Study on Crime Committing and Penalty. Heemphasized the irrationality of death penalty and provided the reason against death penalty. With theprocess of time, especially after World War II, more and more countries began to advocate the abolition ofdeath penalty in the aspect of criminal legislation. According to statistics, the Second Optional Protocol tothe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights passed in1989, aimed at the abolition of the deathpenalty. By2013, it had received approvals from76countries and more than150countries had abolished orno longer executed death penalty. In2012, among193member countries of the UN,174countries didn’texecute death penalty. Till today, the argument on the existence or abolition of death penalty has neverstopped. Scholars with the view of maintaining death penalty advocate that death penalty is a humanisticpunishment system and it is in line with rationality. They believe that death penalty has not violated theidea of correcting crime and it is an equal and equitable punishment system. It not only has huge deterrent function but it is also beneficial to maintain good custom and social order, which is in accordance with theintention of punishment retribution. Scholars with the view of abolishing death penalty advocate that deathpenalty is against humanism and it is a barbarous punishment method. They believe death penalty is notbeneficial to correct crime and make criminals better. It is a punishment system which has violated equalityand equitableness. It can neither play the deterrent function nor follow social development direction,violating the intention of education punishment and intention punishment.There are three parts of the article except the Introduction and the Conclusion.Part I: The responsibility of the relevant knowledge doctrine summarized. Firstly, the meaning ofresponsibility as the cutoff point, the connotation from responsibility ideology,elements, function, andbehavior on the results of worthlessness worthlessness impact on the doctrine of the responsibility, briefintroduction of the responsibility doctrine. Secondly, from a historical perspective on the different theoriesof responsibility ideology. Finally, from a position of responsibility in the criminal justice system ofdoctrine, the basic principles and provisions of the Penal Code expressly discretion of the death penalty aswell as the relationship between the three levels of responsibility doctrine discussed in our criminal lawsystem and the death penalty applies to the process of embarrassment.Part II: Mainly discussing the relationship between doctrine and our responsibility to the discretion ofthe death penalty. Respectively, from the relationship between Marxism and the responsibility of ourcriminal law system, the relationship between the death penalty and responsibility ideology of discretionand responsibility of the fundamental principles of Marxism three levels of responsibility for macrodiscusses the relationship between Marxism and China’s Death Penalty.Part III: The core of the article, the specific application of the responsibility ideology of discretion indeath are discussed. Mainly includes the following aspects: intentional responsibilities facts wrongunderstanding of responsibility, liability capabilities, responsibilities Aggregated Consequential Offenseconviction plot elements of responsibility and accountability within the elements outside the sentencing offive parts separately discussed.