On The Clarity Of Instigation Intention

The clarity of abetting intention is the degree of understanding of the abettor to carry out the act.Thestandards of clarity regarding instigation intent are also different in different countries.The German and Japanese countries have higher requirements for the clarity standard of abetting intention,and our country has lower requirements for the clarity standard of abetting intention.The ambiguity of abetting will lead to the expansion of the scope of abetting and then affect the establishment of abettor.Therefore,the clarity of abetting intention has important research value.This paper attempts to study the specific criteria of abetting intentional clarity through the comparison of cases and experiences between China and Germany and Japan.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the essay may be divided into the following four parts:The first part is the research status of abetting intentional clarity.This part mainly selects Germany,Japan and our country judicial practice regarding the abettor to the abettor intentional understanding degree classical case,carries on the appraisal to it,obtains the German and the Japanese country and our country in abettor intentional clarity existence obvious difference.In German judicial practice,the criterion of the clarity of abetting intention is the abettor's understanding of his own abetting behavior and the individualized elements of carrying out the act.In Japanese judicial practice,the criterion of the clarity of abettor's intention is the abettor's understanding of his own abetment and the act of execution,excluding time and place.In the judicial practice of our country,the criterion of the clarity of abetment intention is general abetment,which leads to a series of problems,such as the contact of meaning which can not judge the joint crime in the judicial practice of our country,the inconsistency of the determination of the excessive limit,the general understanding of the elements of the act constitution by the abettor.The second part is about the definition of the content of abetting intention.This part of the content is mainly to define Germany and Japan and our country on the content of abetting intent.First of all,the content of the instigation intention in Germany includes the intent and intention which causes the constitutive act,which is manifested in the understanding of the abettor to the abetment act,the object of the abetment,the object of the act,the object of the crime,the time and place.Secondly,the content of abetting intention in Japan mainly includes the criminal intent caused by the abettor and the understanding of the abettor that the abettor will commit the criminal act,which is manifested in the object of abetment,the act of abetment and the act of execution.Moreover,the content of abetting intention in our country mainly includes cognitive factor,will factor,degree of cognition,degree of cognition.Finally,through the analysis of the content of abetting intention between germany and china,the author thinks that the content of abetting intention is that the abettor has a clear understanding of the criminal act to be committed by himself and the legal consequences of the act,and also requires the abettor to have a certain degree of understanding of the act committed by the perpetrator and the result of the harm that the act will probably cause.The third part is the theory review of abetting the clarity of intent.First of all,the difference between the abettor and the abettor is that the abettor only reduces the difficulty of the perpetrator to carry out the crime,and the abettor has the guiding effect on the perpetrator to carry out the crime,which determines the clarity of the abettor's abetment intention.Secondly,the content of abettor's abetting intention determines the process of joint crime and the realization of planned purpose from the macro point of view,and determines the object,nature,result and criminal responsibility of the whole crime from the micro point of view.It is necessary for the abettor to set up the abettor and the basis for the criminal responsibility of the abettor.Furthermore,in terms of the nature of the abettor,after resolving the unique character of the abettor,the duality of the abettor and the accessory attribute of the abettor,the author thinks that the accessory attribute of the abettor is reasonable and fit with the legislation and justice of our country.According to the accessory attribute of the abettor,the establishment and punishment of the abettor are subordinate to the perpetrator,and the abettor causes the perpetrator to commit the crime,and the explicit instigation intention of the abettor is the premise of the successful execution of the crime.In addition,by analyzing the theory of punishment of abettor,the author thinks that the theory of compromise initiation is reasonable.Compromise leads to the conclusion that the act committed by the abettor is the specific object of infringement of legal interests stipulated in the sub-rule of criminal law.The abettor indirectly infringes legal interests through the act of the abettor,and the abettor does not have the correct direction and plan to commit the crime.Finally,through the analysis of various theories of over-limiting judgment,the author thinks that the clearness of abetting intention is the important basis of over-limiting judgment.The fourth part is the principle requirement and concrete standard of abetting intentional clarity.The clear principle of abetting intention is the unified theory of crime constitution and the guiding principle of abetting intention.The abetting intention should have the concrete standard which is clear,mainly from the constituent element main content and the special content aspect analysis,in the constituent element main content aspect mainly includes the abetting behavior,the abetting object,the crime direction object.The special content of the constituent elements is mainly about the time,place,method and so on.In addition,awareness of the need for additional criteria,including mainly amounts and aggravating results,is required.