Study On The Impossible Crime

About impossible crime, our country's criminal law only regards it as unaccomplished offense, and the study on it is rare. But to investigate the history of the concept of impossible crime and to compare foreign laws and jurisprudence to the domestic, we find there is difference between them. Based on the comparation, this article points out that the difference shows the subjectivist attitude of our country's legislation on the question of unaccomplished offense. This attitude isn't accord to the development of our society, because human rights are being paid more and more attention and "the law's rule" is being setted up in criminal domain. This article also points out that it's necessary to construct a new concept of impossible crime. It should include two parts, one is the impossible crime which should not be punished, the other is the impossible crime which should be regarded as unaccomplished offence. How to differentiate them, this article puts forward the opinion of twice judgment of danger. The full text is divided into five parts, roughly more than 48,000 words. The first part: Preface. This part sums up the present conditions of impossible crime in domestic laws and jurisprudence, and explains the way of research. The second part: The basic concept of impossible crime. This part compares foreign laws and jurisprudence to the domestic, finds out the reasons of difference. In civil law countries, impossible crime isn't unaccomplished offense. It's just for limiting the range of unaccomplished offence. But in our country, it belongs in unaccomplished offense. The reasons of difference lays on the different attitude for unaccomplished offense. Objectivism thinks that the objective danger of act is the reason to punish, the act of impossible crime has not this danger, so there are not reasons to punish it. Subjectivism regards the reason to punish to the danger in the subjective attempts of the actor. Subjectivism believes that the actor of impossible crime has the subjective danger, so it should be punished. The third part: Reconstruct the concept of impossible crime. This part discusses the subjectivist attitude of our legislation and jurisprudence, points out it's deficiency for protecting human rights. Based on this, this part puts forward the opinion that we should reconstruct the concept of impossible crime and divide it into two parts, one should be punished and the other should not. The way to differentiate them is twice judgment of danger. At last this part advances the advices to make our legislation better. The forth part: Questions relating to impossible crime---errors in criminal law. This part explains the relations between errors and impossible crime, points out that theories on impossible crime is part of theories on errors, but impossible crime is still valuable to study, because they are in different point in criminal system and have different purposes. The fifth part: Conclusion. Sums up the whole text and discusses the possible trends of legislation and theories on impossible crime.