The Limitation Of Punishability In Inherit Accomplice

Currently,there are arguments on the punishability about participate in accomplice during a criminal activity.Researchers interpretate the concept Inherit Accomplice which is successed from foreign criminal law.Based on different interpretations,chaos exsists between the arguments.Based on the causability theory of accomplice,the punishability in inherit accomplice,whether as inplementor or as abetor,is completely denied.However,this theory is now insufficient,and maybe a violation of judicial judgment.Still there are justifiability exsists between that analysises.Based on the interpretation of the concept Inherit Accomplice,the punishability should be redetermined,and the punishment of Inherit Accomplice shall be limited with this method.This article starts with the punishment boundary of joint crimes and analyzes the essence of the concept of causality of accomplices.It is concluded that the causality of accomplices is an expansion of theconditional formula and a judgment in the specific morphological sense of the result.Based on this nature,the scope of attribution of the joint crime to the result can include the facts of the behavior that affect the specific form of the outcome after and before the outcome.In this way,the introduction that the inherited accomplice cannot be punished as an accomplice due to lack of causality is insufficient;on the basis of the possibility of establishing a joint crime,it is theoretically possible to discuss the punishability of the succeeding accomplice.As the conclusion reached when discussing causality expansion,when the scope of punishment for joint crimes expands beforehand,attribution of facts that occurred before the behavior must be based on subjective causality.The subjective elements of the establishment of an accomplice,the boundaries of which are manifested in the following three types of joint crimes: First,the core of the theory is the principle of "one implements all responsibility" for the joint offender;as the extension of the limit is the one-sided accomplice The implementation plan of the fact of common conduct;and the boundary of punishment is the implementation plan as the basis of blame in the collusion of common principal offenders.In this way,from the perspective of dichotomy of facts,the mark of the principal offender can only be judged within the punishment boundary of the joint crime,that is,within the scope of the implementation plan.In this sense,the proposition that the boundary of the punishment for accomplices existed before the judgment of the logo of the principal offender challenged the proposition that the principal criminal is the first result attribution;and then it is possible to challenge the claim of subordination.The problem should be investigated in the following: during the application of the accomplice norms,the relationship between the accomplice regulations and the constituent elements was not clarified,and the judgment of facts and norms was confused.Therefore,it is necessary to re-evaluate the relationship between the principal offender and the constituent elements on the basis of the dichotomy between facts and norms,and discuss the normative significance of the principal offender's mark;Drawing on the research of normative theory in jurisprudence,it can be concluded that the structure ofthe criminal law rules lies in the assumption-condition-sanction;the normative structure lies in the evaluation model of behavioral norms-judgment norms-command norms.Through the application of rules,the criminal law evaluation realizes the judgment between facts and norms;and through the normative structure,the criminal law realizes the evaluation of facts to values.However,the rule-regulation structure derived from the above-mentioned jurisprudence research results is only in terms of the constitutional requirements stipulated in the criminal law sub-rules.According to the general-sub-legislation of the Criminal Law,the punishment conditions for accomplices stipulated in the General Regulations must also be judged and evaluated only through the aforementioned rules and normative structure that constitute the requirements."Modified behavior pattern + joint realization of constituent elements revised punishment results" is the rule structure of joint crimes;it is also the theoretical structure that accomplices "implement subordination" should have.As for the standard structure of joint crime,that is,the punishable basis of accomplice,from the perspective of the accomplice system,there are different interpretations of the unitary system and the distinction system.It is manifested as a common theory of common behavior on the fact level and a common theory of crime in the sense of normative judgment;and due to the implementation of the relationship between subordination and element subordination,it is divided into the theory of responsibility accomplice and causal accomplice;and further based on the content of element subordination,Divided into non-dependent attributes,the smallest subordinate,restricted subordinate,maximum subordinate,exaggerated subordinate forms.By judging whether the aforementioned "regular structure and normative structure of accomplice" conforms to the theory of three types of accomplices that can be punished according to the three types of independent theory and the subordinate theory,this paper analyzes the rationality of the theory of accomplice In the sense of non-compliance with the rule structure and the norm structure,all the theories of accomplices,except the revision provoking and mixed provoking theories,have noreasonable conclusions.In this sense,the proposition that the principal offender is the first result attribution is a subordinate proposition that is opposite to the narrow sense accomplice only as the second result attribution,which is the basis for the punishment of joint crimes;but it is not the punishment boundary for joint crimes.As a form of crime,joint crime begins with its standard judgments starting from the constituent elements specified in the sub-rules.However,the mark of the principal offender does not constitute the judgment of the conduct of the act that should be commensurate with the elements;nor is the fact that the co-offender is a "common behavior" judgment.Before the judgment of the principal offender is made,the judgment of causality in the specific morphological sense realized by the result "causes together",and thus limits the scope of application of the principal offender rule and the accomplice rule;there is no contradiction with the principle of subordination of the accomplice.Therefore,when the succeeding accomplice possesses complicity,the succeeding accomplice should be punished as a joint crime;when it meets the mark of the principal offender,it should be punished as a joint principal offender.