The Judgment Standards Of Excessive Offense

As the focus that penologists dispute over, this issue about how to judge the excessive offense is as old as the hills. Although the penologists in the world have put forward many theories, however if we trace those theories to its source, we could find that those theories are defined as Subjective Theory and Objective Theory. In virtue of it’s own limitations Objective Theory as the main theory has been abandoned gradually, which had won the recognition of some penologists in the past time. But as the other main theory Subjective Theory has had been advocated by the penologists becomes the reasonable one. It contains "going-beyond-the-limit" theory, "knowing" theory and "foresight" theory. But as a single theory they cannot solve the problem of excessive offense commendably primly for their own shortcomings, such as the going-beyond-the-limit is too abstract to wield in the process of using and the knowing theory and foresight theory’s judgment criteria is too broad or too absolute.However, by the integrated use of the two theories, we can find that they will make up each other’shortage when the criteria of them is modified. First, we should narrow down the situation that accomplice take responsibility by use the foresight theory discreetly. Second, we should emphasize that the reason why the accomplice is guilt for the surplus behavior of the perpetrator is that the accomplice has the duty to stop it, without other reasons. Then we can these two theories to judge the accomplice liability. In other words, if we can use the foresight theory to judge the accomplice liability then we should not consider others, but if we can’t then we should consider that the accomplice has the duty to stop it or not by use the knowing theory to judge it. The accomplice is guilt for the surplus behavior when he has the duty under he known the behavior, vice versa. Only so, we can judge the accomplice liability by the integrated use of these two theories.