The Limitation Of Objective Imputation Theory On Antecedent Behavior Of Omission Offense

For a long time,the crime of omission is a difficult problem in criminal law theory.The complexity lies in why crimes committed as forms can be regulated by the crimes committed as forms,that is,equivalence.The problem of equivalence between crime of omission and crime of action is more reflected in the social harmfulness brought by crime committed in the way of omission,and the degree of infringement on legal interests is equivalent to that of crime.For most inaction crimes,it should be said that the judgment of antecedent acts plays a decisive role in determining the final result.The concept of antecedent behavior,and even the obligation to act as antecedent behavior,seems to be worthy of affirmation in the present.There is no doubt that both the formal obligation of action and the substantive obligation of action have their reasonable points,but they also have some defects.That is to say,the study of antecedents in the framework of obligations can lead to too much scope or too small,the judgment standard is not reasonable,challenges to the principle of legality and so on.The objective imputation theory first begins with the judgment and solution of causality problem and then develops into an independent theoretical system.The judgment and qualification of antecedent behavior must conform to the restriction of equivalence principle.The introduction of objective imputation theory is essentially a limitation on the judgment of causality between antecedent behavior and final result.The objective imputation theory has its natural advantage,which can make up for the deficiency of judging the antecedent behavior under the framework of obligation,and reach logical self-consistency with the restriction problem of antecedent behavior.The general path of applying objective imputation to limit antecedent behavior is:first,antecedent behavior creates the danger that law does not allow;secondly,it realizes the danger of antecedent behavior;finally,the result does not exceed the protection scope of constitutive elements.First,the danger created by the antecedent act is not allowed by law,it can be said that the antecedent act initiates the causal process facing the damage of legal interest,which is the cause of the harmful result inthe sense of criminal law norm,and it can also be regarded as the source of the evaluation in the sense of norm.Secondly,the relationship between the antecedent behavior and the final result of legal interest damage must be the purpose of normative protection.That is,there is no wind between them In case of risk association,imputation shall be excluded.Third,the result must be within the scope of the action of the constituent elements of the specific crime or the protection purpose of the norm,that is,the damage consequence is the result of the protection purpose or scope of the constituent elements in order to be imputed.