On The Principal Offenderization Of Helping Behavior

According to the theory of Joint Crime,both the conviction and the sentencing of the aider are subordinate to those of the principal offender,meaning that criminal law is unable to punish the aider in the absence of the principal offender.In order to penalize certain abetting harmful behavior,legislators have fashioned independent charges or penalties for such parties.With the aggravation of social risks in modem society,this kind of imputative model,which is called the principal offenderization of helping behavior,is frequently applied.However,while attempting to get rid of the subordination of the accomplice through principal offenderization offers to close loopholes in punishment,it also introduces the danger of an improper expansion of the punishment scope,and challenges the coordination of the criminal law system.In addition,there are still many problems to be solved in the theory and practice of the principal offenderization model.Therefore,it is necessary to re-examine the model in cases where it may be widely applied.With this exigency in mind,this paper analyzes the principal offenderization of helping behavior,with the aim of comprehensively restricting and reducing the application of relevant laws or legislative techniques and eliminating the possible adverse effects of a reliance on principal offenderization by returning to the theory of dogmatics.To be specific,this paper is divided into the following four chapters:The first chapter discusses the theoretical premise of the principal offenderization of helping behavior within the framework of Joint Crime theory.It also elaborates on the relationship between the principal offender and the accomplice,and the existence or absence of the subordination of accomplice respectively.In addition,it is recognized that the principal offenderization of helping behavior is a special imputative path that is employed in order to eliminate the limitation of an accomplice's subordination within the framework of the limited principal offender.The second chapter analyzes the theoretical basis of the principal offenderization of helping behavior.Based on the the perspective of dogmatics,the theory of dual Handlungsunwert provides the basis of legitimacy for the principal offenderization model.Additionally,from the perspective of criminal policy,on the one hand,the principal offenderization of helping behavior advances the protection of legal interests,expands the striking radius of criminal law,and realizes active general prevention,and therefore reflects the concept of modern risk criminal law.On the other hand,this model reduces the burden of proof on investigative and public prosecution organs,which is convenient for fighting crime and responding timeously to real demands.The third chapter discusses how to reconstruct the kinds of divisions of the principal offenderization of helping behavior,while limiting the improper application of existing legislation through the application of new standards.First of all,the paper criticizes the mainstream view that all the clauses that emerged with the appearance of independently punishing helping behavior should be regarded as typical of the pattern of principal offenderization.Four division methods that are used to substantively judge the principal offenderization are subsequently summarized and analyzed.On this basis,this paper distinguishes the clauses of principal offenderization according to whether or not the subordination of accomplice is recognized,so that part of the accusations will again be regulated by the theory of Joint Crime.Then,when applying the principal offenderization clauses that do not comply with dependency,and deal with the aider of accessorial crime,abettor of accessorial crime and the attempted accessory,it becomes possible to realize the second restriction on the expansion of the criminal penalty in a reasonable way.The fourth chapter considers the phenomenon of the pan-principal offenderization of helping behavior and advances suggestions to limit this legislative technique.First of all,this paper discusses the harms of an excessive application of the principal offenderization imputative approach(i.e.pan-principal offenderization),including contravening the theory of violating legal interests and harm-based sanctions,unduly restricting the freedom of the public,violating the principle of modesty and restraint,and destroying the coordination of the criminal law system.It is accordingly concluded that the use of principal offenderization should be subject to restraints.In order to realize the limitation of this legislative technique,on the one hand,two alternative schemes are proposed,which are the comprehensive introduction of the limited attribute theory,and the reapplication of a two-tiered system of division.When relevant problems can be solved by these two schemes,no additional legislation for principal offenderization need to be introduced.On the other hand,when there is a real need to invoke the law of principal offenderization in the case of unanswerable problems in the above-mentioned schemes,the modesty of the legislation of principal offenderization can be realized to the greatest extent through clarifying the criteria for the establishment of accusation and limiting the applicable fields.