Research Of Bearing Responsibility Solely For One’s Own Crime

Principle of bearing responsibility solely for one’s own crime was originally an old issuein the study of criminal law, however, currently it has become a hot subject to be furtherlooked into, resulting from the question exposed in the legislative and judicial related tojuvenile delinquency, unit crime and fine penalty. This paper is divided into four parts inaddition to the introduction and conclusion.Part I, the basic questions about bearing responsibility solely for one’s own crime. Itmainly gives a general outline of the historical source, conceptual interpretation andtheoretical basis of bearing responsibility solely for one’s own crime. Bearing responsibilityfor one’s own crime has been occurred from nothing to being, then gradually to perfect.Conceptually, it refers to that everyone bears criminal liability solely for his own crime;theoretically, it is based on the punishment purpose of combination theory and specializationof criminal liability and the like.Part II, the criminal orientation of bearing responsibility solely for one’s own crime. Thissection mainly expounds the criminal orientation. On the discussion over whether bearingresponsibility solely for one’s own crime can be the basic principle of criminal law, the authorfirstly defines the basic principle of criminal law, then evaluates the necessity and possibilityof bearing responsibility solely for one’s own crime developing into the basic principle andspecify its position in criminal law. And lastly, the writer analyses why bearing responsibilitysolely for one’s own crime did not become the basic principle from the perspective of conceptof criminal law and environmental crime legislation at that time.Part III, the study of the present judicial and legislative condition of bearingresponsibility for one’s own crime. This part mainly gives a general overview of the questionsabout bearing responsibility for one’s own crime exposed in current legislation and judiciary.Legislatively, principles of unit criminal penalties conflicts with bearing responsibility solelyfor one’s own crime. It still has legislative vacancy when the units handle pure natural personcrime. Judicially, we can not generalize whether the phenomenon of paying on behalf of others in fine penalty, paying money for commutation and the incidental civil liability resultedfrom juvenile delinquency borne by the family members are compatible with bearingresponsibility for one’s own crime.Part IV, the legislative and judicial perfection of bearing responsibility solely for one’sown crime. It refers to the legislative and judicial perfection of questions aroused over bearingresponsibility for one’s own crime. Legislatively, it is necessary to amend single-penaltysystem and its applicable crimes, exactly define the related persons responsible for unit crime,get that units deal with pure natural person crime legislated. Judicially, that the criminal issentenced to a fine or exchanged penalty is based on whether the criminal has payingcapacity.