Conspirators’ Convictions And Sentences For Aggravated Consequences

The situation that two or more persons conspire to realize certain crime but in fact onlya part of them implement executive conduct of this crime occurs a lot in judicial practice，sometimes with the aggravated consequence. There is considerable controversy about theconviction and sentencing to offenders who only conspire. This article starts with a typicalcase and analyses the conviction and sentencing to conspirators about the aggravatedconsequence.This article is divided into four parts.Part One is the case description. This part describes the case: Zhang and Li conspired torob. After reaching the village of robbery site, Zhang didn’t go to the robbery site because oftemporary reasons while Li went, implemented robbery and killed Wang for robbing.Part Two is different opinions and contending focus in this case. There are threedifferent opinions: The first opinion thinks that Zhang and Li don’t establish joint crime,Zhang establishes Robbery Crime(Preparation) alone and doesn’t bear criminal responsibilityfor the death of Wang; The second opinion thinks Zhang and Li establish joint crime about theRobbery Crime’s essential offense but Zhang doesn’t bear criminal responsibility for the deathof Wang; The third opinion thinks that Zhang and Li establish joint principal offender aboutthe Robbery Crime’s essential offense and aggravated consequential offense and Zhangshould bear criminal responsibility for the death of Wang. This part also describes thecontending focus: Conspirators establish joint crime or not, all the conspirators establish thecollusive joint principal offender or not when only a part of them implement executiveconduct of the crime, and Zhang should bear criminal responsibility for the death of Wang ornot as well as the reason.Part Three is Legal Analysis. Firstly, the writer demonstrates that Conspirators establishjoint crime; secondly, the writer discusses the theory of the collusive joint principal offenderfrom four aspects, points that it is quite necessary to use the division classification method toclassify the conspirators accurate conviction and sentencing and concludes that Zhang and Liestablish the collusive joint principal offender about the Robbery Crime’s essential offense;thirdly, the writer analyses the question that collusive joint principal offenders of essentialoffense should bear criminal responsibility for aggravated consequence or not and its reason. The writer discusses the theory of aggravated consequential offense from its essence andoffense form,then analyses the condition of joint principal offender of consequentialaggravated criminal and concludes that Zhang and Li don’t establish Robbery Crime’s jointprincipal offender of consequential aggravated criminal, and analyses the case and concludesthat Zhang should bear criminal responsibility for the death of Wang because of the reasonthat Zhang establishes Robbery Crime(Causing death) alone with the negligence attitudetowards the death of Wang.Part Four is research conclusions. First, the writer concludes about this case:Liestablishes Robbery Crime(Causing death) alone with the intention attitude towards the deathof Wang; Zhang establishes Robbery Crime(Causing death) alone with the negligence attitudetowards the death of Wang, bearing criminal responsibility for the death of Wang; Zhang andLi establish the collusive joint principal offender of Robbery Crime’s essential offense. Thenthe writer put forwards two suggestions: strength the idea of “convict before sentencing”when dealing with joint crime cases; analyses the reason why collusive joint principaloffenders of essential offense should bear criminal responsibility for aggravated consequencein detail when dealing with aggravated consequential offense cases.