Research On Involved Offence In Chinese Criminal Law

In the academic circle of Chinese criminal law, some deep research about the involved offence has been done, but there’s a lack of the study on the types of it. Due to a lack of systematic and full research and demonstration, the judicial problems and the related theories of involved offence can’t reach a common sense. Based on the former research, I put my emphasis on the specific provisions in our current criminal law. By analyzing the rules and combining with the judicial practice, I explore the basic problem of involved offence and the hard problem in the judicial identification, thus to try my best on solving the judicial chaos.In concrete, this article is divided into three chapters.The first chapter is the summary of involved offence. This article aims at the research on the related rules about the involved offence in Chinese criminal law and clarifying the definition, address and the feature of it. In the progress of researching Chinese involved offence, we can clearly figure out that the involved offence was first apart from the collateral system, and grew from a joint crime to a separate crime. I insist on calling it "involved offence", deem that the involved offence refers to the helping type of crime which the actor is fully aware of the other crime, but still imposes this crime after the other one has come to a halt without mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The involved offence has several features, including it happens afterward, it relies on the original offence, it’s an independent crime, it’s clearly aware of the original offence and it’s ruled in the law.The second chapter mainly analyzes the involved offence in Chinese criminal law and how it differs from the original offence and the joint crime. In Chinese criminal law, twelve crimes are belong to the scope of typical involved offence, including article 191, article 310 and so on. The conviction and sentencing of the involved offence relies to the original offence to some extent. It can be divided into two types. The first is based on the human or the materials. The premise is that the original offence can be seen as a crime, and if the fact of the original offence can be checked and found to be true, then it can be seen as a crime. It doesn’t matter whether the original offence is judged by the court. The second is based on the behavior. It doesn’t need the original offence to be seen as a crime. In the discussion of involved offence and the joint crime, the involved offence differs from the joint crime in some aspects, including subjective intent, objective behavior and the relationship, especially the accessory afterwards. When the original offence abets the others to carry out the behavior of involved offence, this can’t be seen as the joint crime of the involved offence. Besides, there’s an essential distinction between the involved offence and the one-sided accomplice.The third chapter mainly discusses several hard problems about the involved offence. First is the analysis of the overlap of articles of law in the involved offence. The relationship of the overlap of articles of law should be divided by extension, which can be split into inclusive relations and the overlapping relations. These relations exist in some of the involved offence, mainly are the involved offence based on the human and based on the material. The second is the identification of the exposing meritorious services of the involved offence. The exposing meritorious services should be based on the theory of the "exceeding confession". That’s to say, the actor can clarify his crime without confessing other’s crime. This won’t play a substantial role in the conviction and the sentencing. If the actor confesses the other’s crime on this base, this behavior exceeds the confession of the actor himself, which belongs to the confession of the others. And this can be meritorious services. So, both the original offence uncovers the involved offence and the involved offence uncovers the original offence can be seen as meritorious services, for they both exceed the confession of their own crime. The last is the problem about the involved offence and the harboring in relatives. When the subject of the involved offence is the relative of the original offence, the discussion about the harboring in relatives becomes necessary. Although the harboring in relatives system is comparative reasonable and has a positive guidance in terms of value, the claim about directly leading it into the criminal law evaluation system should be seen in a rational way.