On The First Act In Omission Crime

Though the dominant ideology says that the first act is one obligation source of omission crime, there have been many questions in this field also. What is the reasonableness and justifiable foundation to first act theory? Which action and how an action could be recognized as first act that? This thesis aims to answer these questions.Chapter one elaborates the category of first act in omission crime. Firstly, by comparing the position of first act theories in different countries, the author delivers the commonness in different theories. Then the concept of first act is putted as following: first act is an act which carried out by the offender himself before his actus reus, and it threatens legal internets; besides, the actor do not have legal or conventional obligation. Secondly, the origin and history of first act theory is showed in order to help to understand first act's meaning.Chapter two describe the justifiable foundation of considering first actor as guilty. There are many theories to explain why it is reasonable to punish the actor. After the discussion about traditional justifiable fundament, the author puts the idea that the reasonableness can be proved in essential illegitimacy. There are spontaneous orders in the society, and the bases of such orders are those intimate orders. Such intimate orders demand people in the society to do something to protect these orders. These demands are the foundation to guarantor theory as well as the first act theory.Chapter three shows the cognizance standards of first act in omission crime. Spontaneous orders and intimate orders try to protect legal interests by setting roles to everybody in the society. So whether the actor is a guarantor should be recognized through the relationship between the actor and legal interests or dangers. It should be carried out step by step. Firstly if the actor has legal or conventional exclusive obligation to legal interest (locked-relationship), he is a legal or conventional guarantor. If not, it is time to recognize the relationship between the actor and the danger. If there is a locked relationship (the act is dangerous), the actor could be considered as a first act guarantor. Locked relationship means the act is dangerous to legal interest. Under the theory of ob-jektive Zurechrung,an act is dangerous means it makes or increases a risk that is not allowed by law.Chapter four answers other questions about first act. Through the standards, first act does not contain legal acts and omissions. Because only illegal behavior and an act could make or increase the risk not allowed by law. Besides, an act with intention and negligence could be a first act also, because an intent act or a negligent act could make or increase the risk that is not allowed by law.