Research On The Causality Of Malfeasance Crime

The theory of causality in criminal law is transforming from the traditional debate to the contemporary debate, and the fact of dimidiate separation between factual attribution and normative imputation is the common trend of current theory of causality. As a result, conditioning theory become “uncrowned king” in the attribution level, but such a dimidiate framework also exposes it to a predicament of interpretation. In the hypothetical causality and alternative causality, the prototype of conditioning theory needs to be fixed. Meanwhile, in the causality of non-action, the conditioning theory is infected with the color of normative evaluation, and the strict framework of attribution and imputation is broken actually. What’s more, the substance of conditioning theory become empty gradually in the new-type causality, while the epidemiology causality has been advocated. Therefore, the monopoly position of conditioning theory is doubtful. The problem of causality in malfeasance crime is the future expansion of the general causality in pandect of criminal law, but it still has itself particularity. According to the check of practical precedents, judicial difficult points can be extracted specially. The prosperity of causality in pandect of criminal law stands in sharp contrast to the briefness of practical judgment in malfeasance crime. The objective imputation theory has very important methodological advantages and the application prospect of judicial practice in malfeasance crime is very considerable. Owning to a certain degree of cross in the categories of “action crime”, “non-action crime”, “intentional crime” and “negligent crime”, it is necessary to make a typological interpretation in the judgment of causality in malfeasance crime. As the “refined product” of rational construction, the objective imputation theory has been used in two meanings, one corresponds to the causality theory and the other corresponds to the essential constructive factors theory. With the help of the objective imputation theory, the imputation of intentional crime, negligent crime and non-action crime in malfeasance crime can be figured out effectively. Moreover, a new representation will be made.In terms of intentional action crime, even the dimidiate separation between attribution and imputation can be maintained. The conditioning theory is still applied on the attribution level and the objective imputation theory is handled on the imputation level. In terms of negligent action crime, the dimidiate separation between attribution and imputation can also be maintained. The conditioning theory is still applied on the attribution level as same as intentional action crime. The judgment method of traditional negligence theory based on “violation of objective duty of care” can be melted in the specific rules of the objective imputation theory, but the conception of “objective duty of care” still have the significance of independent existence. The violation of objective duty of care corresponds to the level of manufacturing illegal risk and possibility of avoiding result corresponds to the level of realizing illegal risk. Finally, through the “validity scope of component” to solve the problems such as deliberate elf harm behavior. In terms of non-action crime, imputation break through attribution and corrode attribution. The evaluation of the conditioning theory is of no significance. The violation of guarantor obligation corresponds to the level of manufacturing illegal risk and possibility of avoiding result corresponds to the level of realizing illegal risk. Finally, through the “validity scope of component” to solve the problems such as deliberate elf harm behavior. The representation in the objective imputation theory’s utterance can be tested by judicial precedents. As a result, a kind of benign interaction between the new representation and judicial precedents will be formed.