Antecedent Behavior Research

From the end of the 19 th century to the beginning of the 20 th century,Germany took the lead in establishing the status of the source of preemptive obligations.After more than 100 years of development,the criminal law community and the judiciary have long recognized that antecedent behavior can give rise to facts as an obligation,but related issues involving antecedent behavior still exist debate.This article is based on the notion of preconceived behavior,which is based on the notion of inaction and impure inaction.The preemptive behavior creates the theoretical controversy as an obligation,and the predecessor acts as the condition of the obligation and the scope of the preemptive behavior.The full text is divided into four parts,following the progressive development of the theory of antecedent behavior.The first part: An overview of preemptive behavior.This part mainly includes the introduction and development of the theory of antecedent behavior and the definition of antecedent behavior.The article introduces the development of the theory of antecedent behavior from the Roman period to Germany in the 19 th century.It compares the differences between the Anglo-American jurisprudence and the theoretical changes in China since ancient times.The concept of antecedent behavior was defined on the basis of the theoretical combing process.The second part: The preemptive behavior becomes the theoretical analysis of the source of the obligation.There are mainly two kinds of doctrines for this,firstly,affirmatively,affirmatively saying that from a substantive point of view,the antecedent act can be a source of obligations,and if the perpetrator’s antecedent act leads to an obligation that can be fulfilled and not fulfilled,it is not constituted.Pure is not a crime.On the basis of affirmation,it is divided into moral basis and legal basis.Second,it is said negatively that the doctrine starts with the characteristics of antecedent behavior and does not recognize that antecedent behavior can be created as an obligation.The German scholar Schunemann and the Taiwanese scholar Xu Yuxiu both hold similar views.This article believes that it is more reasonable to say that the results of the actual damage and the assessment approach.The third part: Predecessors act as conditions for obligations.It mainly includes four conditions.First,the subjective condition is that the antecedent behavior is the behavior of the actor’s own person;the second is the existence of a dangerous condition.This dangerous condition needs to have both realistic intrusion,realistic urgency,and realistic neutrality.The third is the causal relationship between the antecedent and the dangerous state.This kind of causal concern is not a causal relationship in criminal law,but also has special requirements for the close relationship between antecedent behavior and dangerous situations.Fourth,the actor has the ability to perform obligations.This condition requires the perpetrator to be subjectively aware of the danger and have the possibility of implementing the rescue objectively.The fourth part: The scope of the first-line behavior.This section mainly discusses the specific scope of the preemptive behavior,including whether the predecessor behavior includes legal behavior.After analyzing different views of the theory,this paper considers it to include legal behavior;whether the antecedent behavior includes criminal behavior.This paper recognizes whether the criminal behavior is intentional or negligent.It is possible to become an antecedent act;whether the antecedent act is limited to act,because the lack of rationality as a predecessor act,the antecedent act is limited to act;whether the antecedent act is confined to a responsible act,and the non-charge act can not only generate moral obligations but also generate criminal law As an obligation,the non-responsive behavior can be a predecessor behavior after strictly restricting the scope of the non-responsive behavior.