The Comparative Analysis On The Legislative Mode Of Unit Crime

The prosperity and development of economy has made the increase of varietyand quantity of unit crimes become inevitable, so it is necessary to strike and restrainthe unit crimes. The criminal law in our country adopts the regulation mode ofcombining the general rules and specific provisions, which lists150names of unitcrimes. However, the sentences referring to unit criminals are not that much and theapplicable rate of unit criminals is low in the judicial practice in our country. Thereason of this situation lies in the irrationality of the legislative mode aboutestablishment condition and mode of punishment.Using the comparative study of the law in America, Britain, German, France,Italy, Japan, and the author will analyse the features of unit criminals in several maintypical countries, which would help to define and discuss the characteristics anddefects in the field of criminals in our countries and provide the solution to solve thisproblem.By the comparative analyse, we can see that no matter how we regulate the unitcriminals in the way of criminal liability or the way of administrative liability, if wedon’t explore the form and nature of unit criminals or just keep the eyes on theimputation or punishment way of unit criminals, the mode of legislation would haveone thing in common: the separation way in the establishment of crime and theparalleling way in the punishment.Specifically speaking, the logic of determining unit responsibility aboard is inthis way: first, make sure the result is caused by the behavior of members of units,and then consider how to shift blame to the unit. But the basis and standard vary indifferent countries. No matter on which theory, the judge process of liability of unitsand liability of members are separated from each other, the liability of members baseson the natural crime and the system design of unit criminals provides a independentjudging standard In the way of punishment, the punishing for unit proceed separatelyfrom the punishing for the natural, and the essay hold the point that unit and the natural are independent subject. The members of unit are the subject of natural crimeand only responsible for their own deeds and the member of unit can share andalleviate the liability of the unit. It eventually come true that the separation ofindividual liability and unit liability from the identifiability principle to theorganization responsibility principle.However, the unit criminal in our country demonstrates a integration mode inlegislation：the sentencing logic of unit criminals adopts the containing mode,and thepunishment of unit criminals adopts the sharing mode. Specifically speaking, the unitand the natural are not paratactic and the members in unit don’t possess the totallyindependent legal status and they exist as the element of unit. In the establishmentcondition of unit criminals, the unit is the solitary subject of the crime and theconduct of unit contains the conducts of members, which reflects a top-to-downintegrity behavior of being decided by the unit collectively and being carried out bythe basic members in unit. The regulation only evaluates the conduct of unit as awhole and not evaluates the sole member. In punishment, it mainly adopts thedouble-penalty and appending the single punishment. The members are notresponsible for their own deed but for being the elements of unit.We model the using of system of natural criminals in unit criminals; thelegislative mode of integration doesn’t seek an independent judging standard anddoesn’t provide reason. This model has its inherent defects: there are contradictionsamong the theory, legislation and the judicial practice; the establishment condition isnot clear; there are the inefficiency of striking and preventing unit criminals anddecreasing the scope of punishment. To solve the problems radically, we think that itis necessary to change the existing mode of legislation and the foreign modes of unitcriminals have given us reference.