Causality In Criminal Law Is Not Solely Used For Conviction

Causality in criminal law in general doctrine is the causal relationship between ha rmful behavior and harmful consequence and studied under crime constitution. So it is natural to conclude that causality in criminal law could solely be used for conviction.However, harmful consequence in general doctrine classifies into crime constitutional harmful consequence(conviction consequence) and non-constitutional harmful conseque nce(sentencing consequence). Causality in criminal law can only be used for convictio n but can't deal with harmful consequence attribution and reasonably explain non-cons titutional harmful consequence, the theory that surplus behavior consequence as the dis cretionary heavier circumstances of sentencing affects criminal's criminal liability and j uridical practice. Causality in criminal law thus not only can be used for conviction b ut sentencing while identifying non-constitutional harmful consequence. This paper aim s at studying Chen's theft case to analyze that causality in criminal law is not solely used for conviction. The text is divided into four parts:The first part is " case overview ", which is the question raising part including c ase cause, case introduction, disagreement and dispute focus. This part is to introduce the studying theme that causality in criminal law is not solely used for conviction by analyzing the case of whether the non- surplus behavior person should bear criminal li ability for surplus behavior consequence.The second part is "legal analysis ", which is the theoretical basis part including four aspects: First is the controversial theory that causality in criminal law is not solel y used for conviction. Second is its practical predicament. Third is its theoretical evid ence. Fourth is its practical application. There are two kinds of theoretical point of vi ew respectively as conviction and sentencing causality dualism versus the causality in criminal law monism. The counter-argument and justification that causality in criminal law is solely used for conviction will put the judicial application of the discretionary heavier circumstances of sentencing in trouble while pro-argument and justification that causality in criminal law is not solely used for conviction conforms the basic princip le of criminal law, so it concludes that causality in criminal law is not solely used fo r conviction. The fourth aspect is its practical application, combining the conclusion that causality in criminal law is not solely used for conviction with judicial practice to convey the difference between conviction causality and sentencing causality, only sente ncing causality being used for sentencing and set up sentencing causality standards to guide judicial practice and provide standards for regulating the discretionary heavier ci rcumstances of sentencing judicial application.The third part is "analysis and conclusion", which is the empirical analysis part i ncluding the following two aspects: First is the analysis of Chen's conviction under th e conviction causality circumstance; Second is the analysis of Chen's sentencing unde r the sentencing causality circumstance. The first aspect is mainly based on the convic tion causality theory and joint crime with surplus behavior theory to conclude that Ch en's act does not constitute robbery but only theft and Ye's death is the harmful cons equence beyond the theft crime constitution. The second aspect is based on the previo us theory part to conclude that Chen organizing theft has sentencing causality relations hip with Ye's death so he should bear criminal liability for Ye's death.The fourth part is "the case study enlightenment", which are theoretical innovation and practical application parts including the following two aspects: first is the influen ce to causality in criminal law theory. Causality in criminal law dualism is better than the causality in criminal law monism both in theory and judicial practice, arguing to revise causality in criminal law monism and set the dualism as the general doctrine f or guiding judicial practice and trying to put forward the identification standard of sen tencing causality. Second is the guiding significance for similar cases. This difficult ca se relates to criminal liability of the non- surplus behavior person and sentencing caus ality issue, which can be used as guidance for judicial practice. This guiding case itse lf has limitation, but the judicial interpretation for criminal responsibility of the non- s urplus behavior person should be released in due course which includes sentencing ca usality identification so as to standardize the application of non-constitutional harmful consequence as discretionary circumstances of sentencing.