Study On Liability Objectification In Crime Law

The objectification of criminal liability is not a new issue in present academic field and based on the researches of a number of scholars, the author discusses the theme. In this paper, the objectification of criminal liability is to be researched under the framework of the crime theories instead of the responsibility in the penalty theories. Further, under the background of three levels of crime theory of the continental law system, the author discusses the necessity of the objectification of criminal liability in Chinese criminal theories.The first part of the article is the definition of criminal liability and the objectification of criminal liability. Among the opinions of the scholars, there has not been a commonly accepted standard of the identification of criminal liability and the objectification of criminal liability. According to the author, criminal liability refers to the possibility of subjective criticism in behavior conforming to the criminal constitute elements and illegality, which is both the criminal constitute component and penalty basis. Objective responsibility is not an independent concept, but the evaluation of the elements of criminal liability. When elements of liability is evaluated on the basis of subjective psychological evaluation elements and extended by the objective evaluation standard instead of completely by subjective psychological evaluation elements, the criminal liability presents the tendency of objectification.The second part focuses on the origin of the proposition of the objectification of criminal liability, which comes from two aspects. Changes in the criminal theory system being the direct cause, it exhibits changes in elements of liability. In rationality theory of the system of criminal theory, professor LK Roxin regarded prevention of crimes as the elements of the criminal liability. Then subjective criticism on human behavior is not only a subjective evaluation factor, but also the objective responsibility resistance cause as prevention of the crime. The deep cause is the change of guiding ideology in political philosophy, from positivism to Neo Kantian philosophy to the guidance of criminal responsibility.In general, there are two kinds of presence of the objectification of criminal liability, one referring to the objective tendency in responsibility of the elements, the other being the tendency of objective criteria in evaluation of the specific and subjective psychological factors, such as intentionally or negligently determinations considering the objective behavior of human behavior.The third part describes the problems in the current criminal law system in three aspects. The first one is the contradiction between careless negligence and the theory of anticipated possibility. In the case of careless negligence, the perpetrator having no understanding of harmful consequences, then on the basis of the theory of anticipated possibility, negligence prevent his/her criminal liability. But in legislation, the perpetrator is to be punished, which leads to the conflict in theoretical level. The second aspect is the distinction between indirect intention and overconfident negligence. Since the perpetrator in both of the psychological state has a recognition of the consequences of his actions, it is difficult to distinguish the two situations in practice. The third aspect is the failure to identify indirect intent under the theory which treats the will factor as a core. Meanwhile, it is difficult to identify the direct intention of the statutory crime.The fourth part put forward specific measures to problems mentioned in the third part by the theory of objectification of criminal liability. The theory of objectification of criminal liability is helpful in solving the contradiction between negligence and the theory of anticipated possibility. The possibility to criticize careless negligence lies in the failing of control under the requirements of the average person by law. The theory of anticipated possibility can’t be applied to the cases of careless negligence. The theory also helps to distinct indirect intent from overconfident negligence. This distinction in subjective aspect can be achieved by typecalized objective behavior. The theory of objectification of criminal liability can help distinct indirect intent from the direct intent of nala prohibita by emphasizing the leading role of recognition factor in the determination of the indirect intent and direct intent in ala prohibita., presuming the perpetrator’s subjective intent through the objective behavior. The change of the criminal responsibility needs the objectification of criminal liability. According to Professor Roxin, the category of the logic responsibility is deduced from the goal of the individual punishment of the individual. This purpose is the need of prevention. When a behavior satisfies the requirements of constitute elements and illegality as well as with subjective intent or negligence, if there is no necessity of prevention, the perpetrator is not to undertake the criminal responsibility.