Research On Judicial Determination Of Not Preventing Others From Committing Crimes

Owing to the complex nature of the act of omission,it is difficult to judge and confirm the crime of omission.Therefore,in judicial practice,the courts have adopted the doctrine of prioritization more,evaluating the perpetrator's non-preventing other's criminal behavior as an act,and has not carried out deeper thinking and discussion on the act itself,which undoubtedly expands the impurity.The scope of punishment for omission.Not only that,whether the perpetrators who have not fulfilled the specific obligation to block can participate in the joint crime by means of omission,and whether the perpetrator is the principal offender in the joint crime or the accomplice in the narrow sense is also debatable.The thesis takes the legal phenomenon of not preventing others from committing crimes as an entry point,and studies the related problems of the deep-seated omissions in joint crimes behind it.Based on the relevant theoretical analysis of action and omission,the thesis judges that it does not prevent others from committing a crime as an act of omission,and then combines the three necessary elements of act obligation,performance capacity,and causality to determine that it does not prevent others from acting as a crime.The establishment of a crime is not a crime.Based on the above theoretical research,combined with the facts and the focus of controversy in the case of Chen Chunfu's non-compliance with homicide,analyze and study the establishment requirements of non-compliance and the theoretical theory of the distinction between non-competent principal and narrow accomplice,and then based on not preventing others from crime The type of the actor's obligation to act and the contribution of the behavior of not fulfilling the specific obligation of prevention to the harm result are used to determine whether the actor who does not prevent others from committing a crime is a joint principal of omission,or a helper of omission.