A Study On Basis Of Punishment On Accomplices

Der extensive Terbegdff attempts to generalize the basis of punishment on accomplices depending on the demarcation of the scope of principal offender. However, it can hardly change general cognition in society, and delivers the touch of expanding the scope of punishment. In comparison, der extensive Terbegdff is more reasonable. The recognition with der extensive Terbegdff also makes the studies on the basis of punishment on accomplices more valuable. In addition, the study is also interwoven with many other theories. First of all, in terms of confirming the scope of studies, they should base on the legislation mode of positive laws in each country. The criminal laws in Germany and Japan both distinguish joint principal offenders and principal offenders in a narrow sense. Obviously, the concept of accomplice excludes joint principal offender. The scope of the studies on the basis of punishment on accomplices is only limited on principal offenders in a narrow sense. Second, in the selection of theories, the understanding of theory of criminal commonness and theory of common conduct as well as the confirmation of the instigator's unattached character of the complicity and accomplice dependency will both affect the basis of punishment on accomplices and the verification of reasonableness of each theory. In the "competition" of each theory of the basis of punishment on accomplices, Schuldteilnahmetheorie goes against the task of criminal protection interest, which is also the biggest deficiency. Because LInrechtsteilnahmetheorie does not consider the cause-and-effect relationship between the behavior itself and legal interest invasion or danger, it is criticized because of the non-conformity to the current mainstream opinion (theory of offence of interest of law). Pure provoking theory absolutely denies the association between non-punishment on accomplices and non-punishment on principal offenders. Modified provoking theory absolutely denies the independence of non-punishment on principal offenders. To a certain degree, they both throw themselves into a dilemma. In addition, compromise provoking theory modifies pure provoking theory and modified provoking theory, and draws the conclusion of denying "accomplices without principal offenders" and affirming "principal offenders without accomplices", which consists with the standpoint of "benefit-in-law" theory, solves specific problems in juridical practices, and shows the relative rationality. Based on the connection with "four-component" system and "three-hierarchy" system in domestic criminal laws and the final confirmation of "unification theory", China meets the prerequisite of "referring to compromise provoking theory". In addition, compromise provoking theory is applied in juridical practices and provides a clear thinking pattern for how to handle "crimes of status", "attempted instigation", "necessary accomplices" and other specific situations.