Research On The Causality Of The Accessory

The general meaning of causality in penal code is referring to one relationshipthat in which suppose an action had never been taken, hazard result would not everbeen existed. The meaning of proposing this concept is to offer a basis on which itcan be determined that a crime result is belong to the perpetrator. The illegality of aconduct is not influenced by the existence of causality. However, the causality for anabettor is one constituent element, and the existence of the causality is directly relatedto whether a helping behavior can be a culpable one and results in criminal liability.Therefore, by clarifying the issues related to the causality for the accessory,contributions can be made to the determination of the range with which the accessorycould be established. Simultaneously, this is able to benefit the legal practice bydecreasing the difficulty of affirmance of the accessory.The basis of research on concrete issues related to accomplices is the penalty foraccomplices. Verities of penalty on accomplices base on the existence of necessity ofcausality of an abettor, as well as whether the causality is required to cover crimeresults of the principal guilty party.Totally three doctrines are proposed for establishing the penalty basis ofaccomplices, Accomplice Liability Theory, Illegal Accomplice Theory, and CausalAccomplice Theory. For the Causal Accomplice Theory, it can be further divided intoPure Causing, Correction Causing, and Hybrid Causing. The Accomplice LiabilityTheory and Illegal Accomplice Theory both claim that in the nature of law violationof accomplices, infringement of legal interests has no effect on it. This claim isconsidered as an ignorance of the relationship between infringement of legal interestsand law violation of accomplices. As a result, those two theories are not widelyaccepted.Causal Accomplice Theory, on the other hand, claims that the penalty basis foraccomplices is that their behaviors indirect put the interest that protected by penalcode under a situation that suffers a practical infringement or facing the threats of infringement. The argument within this theory primarily lies on the consequential andrelativity of the illegal behaviors of accomplices. The author claims that the illegalityof accomplices’ behaviors is conducted both by the illegality of the behaviors of theprincipal guilty party and the illegality of the behaviors of the accomplicesthemselves. Therefore, in this thesis, the Hybrid Causing Theory is selected as thepenal basis for accomplices.When it comes to the discussion of whether the causality of an abettor isnecessary, there is a debate in theory between Causality Unnecessary and CausalityNecessary. The former claims that the natures of principal guilty party and theaccomplices are different, the principal guilty party is an infringement guilty partywho cause the damage, while the abettor is perilous guilty party who is responsiblefor a danger of infringement of legal interests. According to the various understandingof the “danger” that the abettor is responsible for, Causality Unnecessary Theory canbe sorted into Abstract Danger Abettor, Specific Danger Abettor, and Abstract+Specific Danger Abettor. The point of view of Causality Necessary Theory is that thehelping behaviors must have a causality with the principal guilty party’s behaviors orresults. There exist multiple claims of the Causality Necessary Theory. Specifically,the Same Causality of Principal Guilty Party and the Abettors, Independent Causalityof Abettors, Implement Behavior Promotion, and Danger Increase. The purpose ofcurrent penal code is for legal interest protection, a penalty on a behavior is based onthe infringement of legal interests. However, the Causality Unnecessary theoryregards Abettors as a perilous guilty party. The penalty is based on the danger of thebehaviors themselves rather than the indirect infringement of legal interests throughthe behaviors of the principal guilty party. As a result, it can be concluded that theCausality Necessary Theory is appropriate.Under the theory of Causality Necessary, considerable controversy exists as well.Specifically, there are two theories, one claims that the causality of help behaviorsshould be considered as long as it reaches the behaviors of the principal guilty party,which is named as Principal Party’s Behavior. While the other theory claims that it isnot enough for the helping behaviors have causality with the principal guilty party’sbehaviors, the causality between the helping behaviors and the result of principal guilty party must exist as well, and this theory is named as Principal Guilty PartyResult. From the point of view of the author, the range of abettor’s causality hasduality, on one hand, a direct causality is established between the helping behaviorsand the principal guilty party by helping them. One the other hand, an indirectinfringement of legal interests or danger of infringement is conducted through theimplemental behaviors of the principal guilty party, therefore, there exists an indirectcausality between the helping behaviors and the implemental behaviors of theprincipal guilty party. The content of Abettors’ Causality is presented both by a directpromotion between the helping behaviors and implemental behaviors of principalguilty party and an indirect promotion between the helping behaviors and the resultsof principal guilty party.According to the patterns that an influence is being implemented, causality ofabettors is sorted into physical and psychological. In the identification of the physicalcausality, the primary consideration is request of level of physical causality ofunilateral abettors. In the identification of psychological causality, problems ofimplied psychological and psychological causality level are studied.