| Behavioral concept in criminal law is the core of theory of criminal law. In terms of the continental law system, behavior theory is the most mature, theory of act of cause and effect, theory of social behavior, theory of act of purpose, theory of personality behavior are all characteristic, but respectively with the difficult problems. In our country, studies on criminal law started quite late, and that on behavior theory has some problems worth discussing. Once it is unable to carry on accurate characterizing of behavioral concept, the consequently established system of theory of crime will inevitably produce a series difficult problem, such as criminal omission behavior and narrow sense accomplice punishment basis. Therefore, this author conducted the research with "behavioral concept in criminal law" as the paper topic. The full text was divided into three parts.The introduction introduced selected topic significance, thesis establishment, paper innovation and personal insufficiency, drawing out the paper topic "on behavioral concept in criminal law".The first chapter described behavioral concept in criminal law of the two families of law, firstly, unscrambled behavior theory of the continental law system, respectively introduced theory of act of cause and effect, theory of social behavior, theory of act of purpose and personality behavior theory, and carried out evaluation of the above four behavior theories. Theory of act of cause and effect could not explain the true meaning of criminal omission and therefore could not become a complete behavior theory; Theory of act of purpose found it difficult to illustrate the error behavior's nature; Theory of social behavior was unable to explain social significance and therefore unable to carry on accurate characterizing of behavioral concept; Theory of personality behavior used abstract significance personality to determine the nature of behavior, making the behavior even more difficult to grasp. So far there has been no authoritative behavioral concept to cover the current criminal law behavior types, thus, how to carry out re-annotation of the behavioral concept is a difficult problem worth considering of various countries' criminal law scholars; next, carried out analysis of British and American legal system behavior theory, respectively introduced behavioral concept in British criminal law and American criminal law, but because British and American legal system had comparatively scarce written law forms, therefore it is impossible to request British and American criminal law to have behavioral concept with accurate definition, and subsequently introduced Professor Husak's control principle greatly focused on recently.The second chapter described behavioral concept in current criminal law theory of our country, first, commented disputes concerning behavioral concept of current criminal law theory, next, and made a series of minute examinations of dangerous act. It was generally believed that, dangerous act was bodily activity implemented to endanger society under human will domination, which initiated a series of minute examinations: first, in the objective aspect summary, whether "bodily activity" could solve the problem of behavior of criminal omission; second, in the subjective aspect, whether "will domination" cover all criminal law appraisal "acts"; third, whether behavior harmful characteristics could display functions of criminal law as the margin essential factor; fourth, whether the current behavioral concept could solve behavior problems of criminal of identity and criminal of possession. The author thought the question rooted in that fact that dangerous act was different from that in the criminal law, moreover characterizing of dangerous act had certain problems. The behavioral concept in criminal law involved general significance behavior, criminal law appraisal "behavior", criminality as well as crime objective "behavior", namely, dangerous act in traditional criminal law, respectively had independent existence scope and specific meaning, and must theoretically be differentiated and accurately characterized.Third chapter described several related concepts of behavior in the criminal law. First, "general significance behavior" must be characterized as the process of the objective condition controlled or should be controlled by the actor to affect to existing state of a specific person or thing. The general significance behavior was a behavior constituted before judgment of conformance of essentials, crime establishment premise, behavior as criminal law foundation, thus the main behavioral concept discussed in this paper. Second, criminal law appraisal "behavior" was a fact with criminal law significance, similar to criminality objective aspect and objective nature, included acts of entity significance such as criminality and right behavior, and included accidents and "acts" of mental patients completely losing identifying or control capacity. Since the occurrence of harmful consequences was not controlled or should not be controlled by the actor, and therefore it was not behavior, but they are nonbehavior fact of the criminal law appraisal. Obviously, not all the criminal law appraisal "behaviors" were practical significance behaviors, accidents and other non-behavior facts were also included. Third, "criminality" referred to behaviors conforming to crime constitution. So long as the behavior conforms to crime constitution's 4 essentials, it would constitute criminality, and should receive penalty and punishment. Fourth, "the behavior" constituting essentials objective aspect, namely dangerous act in the traditional theory of criminal law, must be accurately characterized as criminality objective aspect nature, and existed as the crime objective aspect essentials instead of entity significance behavior. The general significance behavior was the criminal law foundation and crime establishment premise, and the 4 continental law systems focused on the behavioral concept of general significance behavior mainly, therefore this paper took "general significance behavior in the criminal law" as its main object. Criminality was a special form of the general significance behavior, dangerous act in the traditional theory was criminality objective nature, both of which were established on the basis of the general significance behavior and conformed to the general significance behavioral concept. The paper focused on re-characterizing and deep description of the general significance behavioral concept.The fourth chapter described "actor" in the behavioral concept. The act should first be human act. The act main body essentials should be decided by at least two factors: one was the behavior main body understanding and control capacity; the behavior main body understanding capacity was premise and foundation for the actor to undertake legal responsibility, control capacity was the key to legal responsibility capacity, including behavior actor's control capacity and control duty. The other was the behavior main body subjective initiative. When the way meeting individual demand was consistent with that of social demand, in order to meet his own demand, the individual would adopt the way of behavior understanding capacity and control capacity, which would have positive influence on the society, like justifiable defense and act of rescue in the criminal law. From the social benefit angle, we called this kind of subjective initiative positive subjective initiative; but if the way meeting individual demand was inharmonious with social interest, in order to meet his own demand, the individual would adopt the way of behavior understanding capacity and control capacity, which would sabotage social stability and have negative influence on the society, we called this kind of subjective initiative negative subjective initiative, and the so-called social harm was embodiment of this kind of negative subjective initiative.The fifth chapter described "control or should control" in the behavioral concept, the behavioral concept core was "control or should control", containing behavior subjective essentials. The main body behavior process was the psychological state materializing the main body understanding capacity and control capacity and the process controlling his behavior nature under this kind of psychological state. Therefore, behavior was the main body specific psychology state in objective world, and reality of subjective essentials. The subjective essentials materialized psychological state of the actor understands and control his own behavior nature, including 2 aspects, namely, the actor's behavior understanding state and control state. The behavior subjective essentials took the understanding factor as foundation first, namely, the actor realized or should realize his own behavior and possible consequence and therefore could control or should control his own behavior; second, the behavior will factor, which was the actor's psychological state development process which he controlled or should control on the basis of understanding factor foundation. The behavior main body transformed main body subjective content into objective reality.The sixth chapter described the behavioral concept "objective condition" and "process" in the behavioral concept. The behavior was the process that the main body controlled or should control objective condition to function the behavior object, transformed the subjective content into objective reality in main body understating on the basis that the main body understood his behavior nature, which referred to the behavior objective essentials. "Objective conditions" in the behavioral concept had 3 kinds of manifestation: the first was the actor's own condition, including the actor's own special status and position; the second was the actor's external natural condition, mainly referring to that the actor used instruments of crime and natural process to implement criminality; the third was other people's behavior, which was quite common in complicity. Research on objective condition which the actor controlled or should control was of decisive effect in determining criminality objective nature, and important significance in explaining criminal omission behavior, narrow sense accomplice punishment basis, and reason free behavior. In terms of "process" in the behavioral concept, the continental law system behavior theory suggested the behavior should be "bodily activity" or "bodily action", which could not cover all behaviors in the criminal law. The behavior was a process developing from the preparation stage to occurrence of harmful consequences, instead of an isolated bodily action or movement. In case there was no other reason rather than the actor's will or the actor's own will factor, the behavior would transform into objective reality according to the actor's will and develop according to the behavior nature understood by the actor until occurrence of consequences. Implementation of the behavior was the process of transformation of the actor's subjective essentials into objective reality, and the process of practical utilization of the behavior main body understanding capacity and control capacity, and more important, the process that the actor used objective condition to function the behavior object. Thus, the behavior was summed up as "process", namely the process that the actor controlled or should control objective condition to affect the specific person or thing existence state.The seventh chapter described "specific person or thing existence state" in behavioral concept. Behavior is the result of interaction of the main body and the object, namely, the main body utilized his own understanding capacity and control capacity to affect the behavior object, influenced and changed specific person or thing existence state to violate or threaten social relations materialized by objective things. "The specific person or thing existence state" in the behavioral concept was as summary of the behavior object, behavior implementation materialized whether the social relations protected by the criminal law were violated or threatened through state changes of the specific person or thing. Obviously, the social relations between the behavior object and the criminal law protection were relations between the form and the substance, the behavior object presented specific person or thing existence state in the fact stratification, and the social relations protected by the criminal law in the legal stratification. The behavior object essentials displayed the behavior social attribute. The traditional viewpoint about object of crime was worth discussing, thus certain revised characteristics of object of crime were put forward: first object of crime should be the specific person or thing existence state, criminality implementation was realized by changing the specific person or thing existence state, and the specific person or thing could only be the material carrier of the behavior object essentials, instead of being able to materialize social relations violated by criminality and protected by the criminal law; second, all crimes had the object of crime because criminality was realized through changing the specific person or thing existence state; third, it was not necessary for the object of crime to have legal nature; fourth, the relations between object of crime and the social relations protected by the criminal law were relations between the form and the substance, unified as the criminal object, thus the re-characterized object of crime could also discern the behavior nature. In road sense, the relations between the behavior object and social relations protected by the criminal law were relations between the form and the substance, which could not be separated.The eighth chapter described explanation of behavioral concept for specific issues. The criminality was the most principal behavior form in the criminal law. re- characterizing behavioral concept should be able to explain criminality, first, direct intent behavior referred to that the actor caused occurrence of harmful consequences through positively using objective condition (including behavior method or method) to control his own behavior on the basis of well understanding his own behavior nature, behavior result and consequence between the behavior and result; second, indirect intent behavior referred to that the actor already realized his own behavior method nature and his own behavior object would cause occurrence of harmful consequences, and the actor could change the objective nature oriented object of his own behavior method and means in the behavior process, but the actor consciously did not utilize his own behavior control, did not try to prevent behavior way transformation of his own behavior nature understanding into objective reality. In brief, it referred to the psychological state, that on the basis that the actor realized his own behavior nature, behavior result and consequence between the behavior and result, consciously controlled him, did not fulfill his duty to prevent occurrence of harmful consequences and therefore caused occurrence of reality of harmful consequences.What worth noting was, "hope" and "indulgence" as the crime constitution subjective crime, was not the static pure subjective mental attitude of the actor to harmful consequences, but instead, dynamic and motile psychological activity with control object and control capacity, which, through the control process of the actor of the behavior object, was not merely the actor's intrinsic psychology activity, a bridge transforming subjective into objective and functioning objective, indicating progress of characterizing behavioral concept compared with the traditional behavioral concept. Third, too self-confident error behavior. Its essence lay in that the actor already realized the consequence that his own behavior could endanger the society, but the actor did not accurately utilize his own behavior control capacity, either overestimated his own capacity, or underestimated the result created by the objective condition, which made his own behavior out of control, and actual occurrence of harmful consequences. Fourth, careless error behavior, referred to that the actor should realize his own behavior nature, harmful consequences as well as consequence between behavior and harmful consequences, but as a result of carelessness, he did not realize it and thus could not control occurrence of harmful consequences. In basis for investigating careless error crime lay in the psychological state that the actor was supposed to control but failed to control and therefore caused occurrence of harmful consequences.Second, reasonable act. This author suggested the crime constitution should be combination of the form and the substance. According to the traditional viewpoint, "reasonable act conforms to the constitution essentials in the form but does not have social hazardous nature in reality, thus is not a crime, does not undertake the legal responsibility", which was contradictory. The reasonable act conformed to the constitution essentials in form, which meant crime coming into existence; and consequently and inevitably had the nature of endangering the society. Reasonable act did not have subjective essentials, and did not conform to crime constitution objective essentials in form. The criminality objective constitution essentials referred to behavior implemented by the actor to endanger the society, while reasonable act was legal behavior to protect national interests, public interests, his own and other people's legal rights and interests, and therefore did not have criminality objective essentials. Obviously, reasonable act did not conform to the crime constitution essentials in form or in reality, and therefore not criminality, did not undertake legal responsibility.Third, criminal omission behavior. What did "criminal omission" mean? It did not mean that the actor did not have any body action, but the process that objective state the actor controlled or should control affected the object of crime, with the following several kinds of materialization: first, probably the actor himself did not participate in the implementation behavior, but used other people's behavior to change behavior object existence state, the actor controlled other people's behavior to achieve the crime goal or cause occurrence of harmful consequences. This case might be explained as narrow sense accomplice punishment basis. Second, using natural process or non-legal act to create serious harm consequence it can constitute a crime. Third, the antecedence behavior caused criminal omission. The actor did not implement the behavior, but his antecedence behavior made the social relations protected by the criminal law at a quite dangerous state, and he failed to take effective action to remove the danger or to prevent occurrence of harmful consequences, thus constituted a crime. Fourth, criminality, each accomplice, under his own criminal psychology control, used other criminal's behavior to achieve occurrence of the harmful consequences. The narrow sense accomplice realized his own criminal intent using principal offender's behavior, no matter whether the narrow sense accomplice participated in the implementation behavior, the crime should come into existence; simultaneously the principal offender was abetted and helped by the abettor and accessory to produce criminal intent and then implement the crime. The re-characterizing behavioral concept could explain accomplice responsibility undertaking.This author believed that, punishment of accomplice should observe the principle of to "punishment of each accomplice according to his own subjective crime scope and respective behavior", which might be referred to for indirect principal offender, one-sided accomplice and contemporaneous offender in case of common error behavior, even one side was intent and the other side was error behavior. We could make specific analysis: first, indirect principal offender referred to the actor used person without legal responsibility capacity to commit the crime to achieve criminal intent, which was not different from using the instrument of crime to implement crime in nature, separate conviction would not produce any problem, and it was not necessary to use indirect principal offender's name to make misunderstanding; the same case with one-sided accomplice, one-sided accomplice's behavior lay in common crime intent side, namely, using the unwitting side to implement behavior to complete the crime. Although one-sided accomplice did not participate in the implementation behavior, only is he helped in secret, both sides did not have the meaning contact, using unwitting side to implement behavior to achieve criminal intent meant criminality, should be required to undertake legal responsibility. Second, in case of contemporaneous offender, this author suggested since neither side had the meaning contact, but respectively implemented their own behavior, either undertook legal responsibility according to their own subjective crime scope and respective behavior; third, common error behavior, or one side intent, and the other side error behavior, were excluded from complicity but processed according to independent crime in the theory of criminal law of our country. The traditional processing method was not different from the principle of "punishment of each accomplice according to their own subjective crime scope and respective behavior". After all, the common error behavior, and one side intent and the other side error behavior were different from the independent crime, occurrence of harmful consequences were created in every way, and the behaviors contained other people's behavior, thus discretion of punishment was carried out processing solely according to independent crime without referring to other people's behaviors did not accord with the adaptive principle of crime punishment.
|
PDF Full Text Request