A Study On The Path To Victims’ Self-responsibility

The victim’s self-responsibility theory is born out of the "self-responsibility" principle in criminal law,and the "self-determination right" in the perspective of liberalism is the theoretical foundation of its legal philosophy.Self-determination establishes an ideal bridge between the supposed freedom and the actual freedom.With the help of "self-determination",the individual can maximize the external behavior and the internal will,thereby demonstrating the objectiveness of the individual as a person The subjectivity of the world.Although "arbitrary" contains the element of freedom of will,it belongs to the fragmented use of freedom of will,reflecting the subject’s perceptual purpose,and violates the rational freedom expected by law.The standardized negative evaluation can be manifested in the criminal law field as the victim’s self-responsibility for corresponding behavior.At the same time,the victim’s self-responsibility theory not only has a legal basis,but also the German and Japanese criminal law and the interpretation of China’s relevant laws also provide support for the law.Under the specific types of "self-crisis" and "other-crisis",the victim’s self-responsibility takes the victim’s "self-determination" as the starting point.When the victim chooses to perform behaviors contrary to the law’s expectations based on "arbitrary" self-determination,Then the consequences of the infringement of legal benefits will be borne by the victim,and the wrongdoing of the actor under the above types will be excluded.Unlike the theory that focuses on factual attribution,victims’ self-responsibility is mainly to discuss the issue of standard attribution in the context of objective attribution.As the theory of normative imputation,objective imputation,on the one hand,tries to overcome the disadvantages of traditional causality theory focusing on factual imputation,on the other hand,it has also been questioned by many scholars on its theoretical value and positioning.It is undeniable that the theory of objective imputation is not a perfect theory of imputation,but in the context of the increasing complexity of criminal imputation and the traditional theory of causality in the context of solving new,difficult,and complex cases,objective imputation theory not only provides A set of theoretical models of normative thinking is more helpful to the transformation of China’s crime theory system,and therefore has its unique theoretical value.At the same time,objective attribution in a broad sense is a combination of attribution and attribution,which includes both the judgment of factual causality and the normative judgment of other attribution factors.This is also the basis for the victim’s self-responsibility.The victim’s self-responsibility is not a question to be discussed under the concept of "protection scope of constituting elements".It is more reasonable to find the basis for negating the illegality of the victim’s self-responsibility from the "initiation of risk creation" and "realization of risk".the way.The normative evaluation of "impossible risk" determines whether the behavior meets the criteria for risk creation.In essence,the existence of "creation" as a premise of argument.This method of splitting attribution and imputation is only used to grasp the risk from the factual level."Creation" neglects the normative significance of creation,and at the same time violates the indiscriminate principle of double inspection of attribution and imputation.In the case of "self-crisis",the self-responsibility of the victim negates the normative attribution of the risk "creation",and the behavior of the perpetrator does not meet the criteria for objectively imputing the "creation of disallowed risk",which can further negate the behavior Wrong.However,there is a difference in facts and norms between "the danger of the other" and "self-crisis".Therefore,the victim’s self-responsibility to solve the problem of "crisis of the other" requires two specific and different ideas.Whether it is self-critical or other-critical,the application of the principle of victim self-responsibility must be restricted in two aspects.On the victim side,there must be an appropriate subject with corresponding knowledge and control factors.At the same time,in the case of "multiple legal benefits",using the "cumulative protection theory" can not only respect the subject position of the victim as a self-determiner,reflect the human rights protection function of the criminal law,but also deny the overall illegality even when the victim’s self-responsibility is applied On the occasion,there is still the possibility of constituting other crimes against the remaining legal violations,thereby achieving fairness and justice in criminal blame.As for the actor,the actor must not have the system jurisdiction obligation.This system of jurisdictional obligation must be based on the agreement of both parties,that is,under the condition that the victim and the actor have a willingness to transfer risks,if the victim suffers the risk of legal infringement,even if he has the ability to self-respond,the actor must also Proactive control of this risk would otherwise constitute an inaction crime.