Principal Offender Research Articles

Gross Negligence as an Element of Involuntary Manslaughter

Introduction: legislation holding parents criminally responsible for the delinquent acts of their children faces with the difficulty of meeting the requisite legal thresholds, such as proving willful intent or gross negligence on the part of the parent. Typically, a person who contributes to the neglect or delinquency of a minor is guilty only of a misdemeanor. Purpose: address important questions about the negligence of the parents and their potential criminal liability for manslaughter. Results: James and Jennifer Crumbley’s conviction doesn’t fit into any of the categories of traditional parental responsibility laws and is instead a first-of-its-kind extension of the manslaughter statute. The liability for the lethal acts of others involves proof of the existence of felonious intent plus a causal relationship between the felony and the death. Under the current common law, the core of complicity lies in intentionally encouraging or assisting the principal offender. Conclusions: the Crumbley verdict may forge a precedent for being gradually applied as a tool for prosecutors to pressure suspects into plea bargains. They “lessen the mens rea needed to establish guilt,” and thus parents are held responsible despite not intending to allow the child to commit the crime.

제3자 소지·보관 정보증거의 압수·수색과 참여권자 문제

Recently, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of 'the right to participate of the confiscated person' in the search and seizure process as a procedural tool to prevent illegal excessive seizure of electronic stored information(ESI), and related precedents have emerged one after another. The mainstream of precedents, such as the Supreme Court's decision on May 26, 2011, 2009 Mo110 and July 16, 2015, 2011 Mo1839 en banc decision, regarded the subject of the right to participate in the search and seizure of ESI as the confiscated person. However, in a situation where an investigative agency arbitrarily submits or confiscates an information storage device containing the suspect's ESI from a third party, if the right to participate is just formally guaranteed, the suspect, who is the information owner, is excluded from the procedure and there has been a problem that the legal system cannot effectively prevent illegal excessive seizure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court recently formed the legal principle of the right to participate in the “actual confiscated person” to guarantee the right to participate in the suspect. However, it is said that the right to participate at this time should not be recognized in the position of the suspect, but should have the “exclusive management and disposition of electronic information.” These “exclusive management and disposition” must be held at the time of seizure or near the time. According to the recent Supreme Court's decision on September 18, 2023, the principal offender and the owner of the information storage device who instigated the concealment of evidence do not constitute a “actual confiscated person” who becomes the subject of the right to participate by transferring the “exclusive management and disposition” to the evidence concealment offender.
 The Supreme Court cites Articles 121 and 123 of the Criminal Procedure Act as the legal basis for the confiscated person's right to participate. However, those regulations differ in purpose and content, and the attitude of the precedent presented as the basis for the confiscated person's right to participate is not valid without a clear distinction. In particular, the case law on the right to participate of the “actual confiscated person” has a problem of impairing procedural stability because the legal basis is not clear. It is desirable to clearly distinguish the legal principles of the right to participate in the search and seizure of electronic information, which have been led and accumulated by the Supreme Court, according to the purpose and nature of each participant's right to participate, and the basis under the current law, and form a legal principles on the scope of the participant when confiscating information on such legal and logical premises.
 Since Article 121 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates the defendant's right to participate in the search and seizure, and Article 219 applies mutatis mutandis to the search and seizure of investigative agencies, the suspect is the subject of the right to participate. However, since investigative activities are essentially required to be covert, an exception to prior notice of execution is granted if they fall under the 'case of rapid demand' in the clues of Article 122, such as concerns about destruction of evidence. This does not deny or limit the suspect's right to participate. However, it is not necessary to notify the suspect of the execution at the stage of search and seizure outside the field as long as the execution is initiated without prior notice.
 On the other hand, although there is no clear ground rule under the Criminal Procedure Act, the right to participate of the confiscated person is naturally recognized in the overall legal system, or the basis can be found in the regulation of the right to participate in Article 123. The meaning of the confiscated person can be interpreted as being the actual confiscated among the owner o

Criminal Responsibility of Accomplices in Committing a Criminal Offence

Background: When a criminal offence is committed by a single person, the problem of criminal responsibility is clear, whereas when the criminal offence is committed jointly by two or more people, the problem of responsibility is discussed. In this paper, the issues related to the problems of the responsibility of accomplices participating in a criminal activity will be addressed, such as the special subject, the excess of the executor, the cooperation and complicity of the case, the use of irresponsible persons in the commission of the criminal offence, and cooperation with unidentified persons. This article will answer the question of whether the criminal offence committed in cooperation would qualify in cases of cooperation with unidentified or irresponsible persons. The conclusions deal with the fact that if the criminal offence is carried out with the will, desire, and joint contribution, it is a product of the joint criminal behaviour, so the persons will be held accountable as accomplices. Also, collaborators are not responsible for other actions of the executor during the commission of the criminal offence, or for actions that go beyond the agreement. Albanian criminal law does not accept objective responsibility in the commission of a criminal offence, it also requires the subjective element. Regarding acceptance of cooperation, there is no cooperation with irresponsible persons. It would not be enough to prove only that in the commission of the crime other persons also participated, be they all adults, but it must be proven simultaneously that the unidentified persons are criminally responsible. Methods: In this study, a comprehensive legal analysis approach was employed to delve into the intricate issues surrounding the criminal responsibility of accomplices engaged in joint criminal activities. The methodology involved a meticulous examination of Albanian criminal law, jurisprudence, and relevant legal principles. The study focused on various aspects, including the special subject, the concept of cooperation, the excess of the executor, cooperation, complicity within specific cases, the utilisation of irresponsible individuals in the commission of criminal offences, and collaboration with unidentified persons. This method allows for gaining a profound understanding of the legal framework governing joint criminal behaviour and accomplice liability. Results and conclusions: The findings of the research shed light on the complex issues surrounding the criminal responsibility of accomplices in cases of joint criminal activities. Through an in-depth analysis of Albanian criminal law and jurisprudence, answers to critical questions concerning the qualification of criminal offences committed in cooperation, especially in cases involving unidentified or irresponsible persons, are provided. The results confirm that when a criminal offence is executed with the shared intent, desire, and joint contribution of individuals, it unequivocally constitutes joint criminal behaviour, leading to accountability for all involved accomplices. Furthermore, the research elucidates that collaborators cannot be held responsible for actions by the principal offender that exceed the scope of their agreement. Additionally, emphasis is given regarding Albanian criminal law adhering to a subjective element requirement for criminal responsibility, ruling out objective responsibility in the commission of criminal offences. Regarding the acceptance of cooperation, the findings underscore that the mere participation of other individuals in the commission of a crime, even if they are adults, does not establish criminal responsibility for unidentified persons. Instead, it necessitates the concurrent demonstration of their individual criminal liability. The results provide valuable insights into the legal principles governing the responsibility of accomplices in joint criminal activities within the Albanian legal context.

정보저장매체 임의제출 후 집행과정의 참여권 보장과 증거능력

In the case of the target judgment, when the principal offender A handed over the information storage medium to B and ordered it to be concealed, B received it and concealed it, he was criminally charged with concealing evidence and submitted the information storage medium to the investigative agency. The investigative agency guaranteed B and his attorney the right to participate in the process of searching, copying, and outputting electronic information stored in the information storage medium, but did not guarantee A and others the right to participate.
 According to the purpose of the existing precedent that the right to participate is recognized if the suspect who is not the confiscated is exceptionally considered a real confiscated person, the majority opinion judged that the right to participate was recognized because the right to participate was legally guaranteed, while the opposition judged that the right to participate was not guaranteed because A and others were recognized as actual confiscated.
 As Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies mutatis mutandis to the seizure and search procedures for the accused during the trial, Article 121 of the Criminal Procedure Act shows that the right to participate should be guaranteed to the suspect, and Articles 118 and 129 show that the right to participate is confusing, so legislative improvement should be realized as soon as possible.
 If the right to participate is guaranteed to all of them if the suspect and the confiscated person are different, the discussion of the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion is meaningless, and even if not, it is reasonable to guarantee the right to participate by recognizing A as a substantial confiscated person, as in the objection of the target judgment. However, it is reasonable to acknowledge the evidence capability of the illegal collection evidence exclusion law by acknowledging the exception of the law of exclusion of illegal collection evidence, as well as actively confirming the right to participate in cases where there are several people, such as the suspect, the confiscated, or between the suspects, but if it is difficult to identify the suspects at the time or their interests are consistent or very similar, it is reasonable to admit the evidence capability by acknowledging the exception to the law of exclusion of illegal collection evidence.

The Legal Framework and Verdicts of the Supreme Court in Protection of the Greater One-horned Rhinoceros: The Case of Nepal

The greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is the largest rhinoceros species found in Nepal and India. The habitat of the greater one-horned rhinoceros encompasses the southern border between the two nations, hence these animals regularly cross this international boundary. Having a national park situated at the periphery of at an international border facilitates the ability of poachers to easily escape from the crime scene. The article examines the legal framework enacted by Nepal to address the poaching of the greater one-horned rhinoceros, one of the world’s most popular endangered mammals. This article also analyzes the case law related to the poaching of the one-horned rhinoceros from the Supreme Court of Nepal. The strict enforcement of the legal provisions adopted by Nepal through the enactment of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973, combined with the punitive approach of the Supreme Court of Nepal, has also helped to discourage the poaching of this species in Nepal. The Supreme Court of Nepal has jointly punished the principal offender for poaching offences with their accomplices, which has helped to discourage in poaching of the one-horned rhinoceros. Nevertheless, a quasi-judicial body, the Office of the National Park, which handles the case firsthand, implements and exercises legal provisions related to poaching at the initial stage and also gives an initial verdict. In most poaching cases involving the one-horned rhinoceros, the principal offenders and accomplices are predominantly drawn from a specific community residing around the Chitwan National Park.

Reform of Anglo-American Complicity Law: Conduct, Connectivity and Comparative Solutions

The challenge presented by extant Anglo-American complicity law is that it intractably homogenises different participatory modalities across a broad landscape of culpability, and ultimately the controller/instigatory actor may be treated alike with the ethereal shadow marionette. It is essential to effect change, not only as a concern of appropriate legal substantive reformulation, but also to avoid capricious practical unfairness. It should not be reforms predicated on the illusory distillation of causality requirements, between assistance and encouragement provided by the accessory and direct commission of harm(s), but rather on an imputed-normative-proportionality standardisation, reviewable via evidentiary perspectives in terms of actual intercessory conduct. A critique of alternative legal system approaches to complicitous behaviour, notably the Germanic Criminal Code, provides further significant insights towards the adaptation of a new accessorial liability framework. This broadened template promulgates a synchronous and complementary original review of withdrawal precepts. A redemptive change of heart aligned with appropriate reductive criminal depredation may exculpate via reverse conduct prophylaxis. Only an individual actor who has manifestly interceded in criminal harm(s), adjudged by the jurors as moral arbiters within prescribed gradations of culpability, as addressed herein, should rank imputably in equiparated blameworthiness with the principal offender. If this equiparation is lacking, or if the criminal wrongdoing is characterised as a wholly independent action by another party, then alternative forms of potential secondary party liability must be sought – a de novo facilitation offence as propounded subsequently, and consideration of reverse burden of proof.

CASE STUDY OF DEFRAGMENTATION OF CITY SCALE’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN MELAKA

The defragmentation of multiple sources of greenhouse gas emissions would allow for more effective climate action at the local level. The adoption of a Global Protocol for Community-Scale (GPC) framework will assist in determining the source of greenhouse gas emissions in Malacca based on inventory data. The online software tool (Harmonised Emissions Analysis Tool (HEAT+)) is used to translate data that can then be used to plan strategic initiatives at the local level. Malacca’s per capita GHG emissions currently stands at 4.59 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e). A GPC analysis revealed the industrial sector was the principal offender, who accounted for 39.6% (1,548.412 tCO2e) of the emissions, this was followed by the transport and logistics sector, which accounted for 29.9% (1,160,333 tCO2e), the commercial sector that accounted for 14.7% (574,844 tCO2e) and individual residences which accounted for the balance 12.8% (499,655 tCO2e). Scope 1 dominated GHG emissions by 72.1%, based on the electricity use data from buildings held by the Historical Malacca City Council and Hang Tuah Jaya City Council. The result indicates that the two government buildings need to lead sustainable infrastructure initiatives and reduce emissions by spearheading various energy efficiency programmes. These initiatives can then be followed by businesses and residences using decentralised energy strategies. Making climate change mitigation efforts a priority is recommended. This can be done by implementing a variety of low-carbon-based technologies supported by command and control frameworks and market-based policy interventions. The manufacturing and services sectors are the two most important economic sectors in Malacca, and both have the capacity to adopt more advanced greener and cleaner technologies. Nevertheless, active modes of transportation must be promoted as part of the adaptation strategy for clean, low- carbon modes of transportation.

Possible effects of melatonin on reperfusion injury following coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Although coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been reported to be one of the most effective internentions in terms of myocardial salvage, reperfusion itself can cause additional damage to the myocardium. Since there is strong evidence that free radicals are the principal offender in ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury, it has been suggested that treatment with antioxidant agents can be protective. Investigations have shown that melatonin secretion is partially disturbed in CABG patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the protective effect of melatonin as an antioxidant agent on I/R injury. 164 elective CABG candidates participated in this randomized clinical trial during the preoperative period. The candidates were randomized to receive 3 mg of melatonin tablets (physiologic dose) from 3 days before surgery until the day of discharge. Cardiac biomarkers [troponin and creatine kinase myocardial band (CKMB)] were assessed once before surgery (24 hours before surgery), and 8 and 24 hours after surgery. Finally, 130 patients, 65 (50%) patients in the melatonin group and 65 (50%) in the control arm finished our study. Mean age of melatonin and control groups was 59.90 ± 9.59 and 60.80 ± 8.00 years, respectively; moreover, 47 (72.30%) in melatonin and 45 (69.23%) in control group were men. No significant difference was seen in baseline cardiac biomarkers between two groups (P > 0.05). In both groups, cardiac biomarkers (CKMB and troponin) elevated after surgery in comparison to their preoperative values. There was no statistically significant difference between the control and melatonin groups regarding the 8-hour and 24-hour troponin and CKMB when adjusted for interacting factors (P > 0.05). Although physiological concentration of melatonin is protective against I/R injury, substitution of endogenous melatonin with the oral supplement which creates physiologic concentration may not prevent I/R injury. In order to have antioxidant effect, pharmacologic doses of melatonin should be employed.

Is complement the main accomplice in IgA nephropathy? From initial observations to potential complement-targeted therapies

IgA Nephropathy (IgAN) is the main cause of primary glomerulonephritis, globally. This disease is associated with a wide range of clinical presentations, variable prognosis and a spectrum of histological findings. More than fifty years after its first description, this heterogeneity continues to complicate efforts to understand the pathogenesis. Nevertheless, involvement of the complement system in IgAN was identified early on. Dysfunction of the immunoglobulin A (IgA) system, the principal offender in this disease, including modification of isoforms and glycoforms of IgA1, the nature of immune complexes and autoantibodies to galactose deficient IgA1 might all be responsible for complement activation in IgAN. However, the specific mechanisms engaging complement are still under examination. Research in this domain should allow for identification of patients that may benefit from complement-targeted therapy, in the foreseeable future.

The Offence of Abetment under the Islamic Criminal law

A person may be said to commit a crime, although, he does not directly be a part of it. To encourage, order, assist another person for the commission of a crime is considered an offence as the act or omission of principal offender is considered. To encourage, order, assist another person for the commission of a crime in legal terminology is called Abetment. Abetment in criminal law specifies distinguish between an abettor and the principal offender. Under the Pakistan Penal Code, in many cases an abettor is not awarded the same punishment as awarded to the principal offender. There are few cases in which the abettor is awarded the same Punishment as awarded to the principal offender. Under Islamic Criminal law majority of Jurists are on the opinion that Hudood punishments will be awarded only in cases where Hudood offences are committed by Participant by Action (Arabic: الاشتراك بالمباشر) in case where these are committed by Participant by abetment (Arabic: الاشتراك بالتسبب), Hudood punishments shall not be awarded to them rather Tazir Punishment may be awarded to them. Thus, Participation in crime is either directly or indirectly. Participation by action (الاشتراك بالمباشر) and Participation by abetment (الاشتراك بالتسبب). Ingredients of Participation by abetment are Consensus (الاتفاق), Instigation:(التحريض and An Assistance (الاعانة). Causes for the commission of abetment are Causeof Shariat(السبب الشرعي), Causeof usages forabetment (السبب العرفي) and Cause of common sense forabetment (السبب الحسي). Further division of Participation by action and participation by abetment: It is further divided into two forms:Tawafuqتوافق)) and Tamalo (تمالؤ). In this reaserach article The Offence of Abetment under the Islamic Criminal law is discussed in detail.

Criminal Law Protection of Cybersecurity Considering AI-based Cybercrime

As the development of artificial intelligence (AI) is unfolding, cybersecurity faces the invasion of AI. AI-based cybercrime becomes a product of technological development, posing a threat to national security, public security, and the protection of citizens’ personal property rights and privacy rights. In particular, the derivation of cybercrime that follows the development of science and technology leads to a qualitative change in the patterns of cybercrimes, expanding the scope and depth of the harm caused by cybercrime, producing a series of impacts on the conviction rules of traditional criminal law in China. The defects such as the features of the principal offender being weakened, the definition of the responsibility for accessory to the principal offender not clear, the narrow scope applicable to one-sided accomplice are present. To this end, in the era where AI and cybercrime have deep integration, given the derivative trend of AI-based cybercrime, it is urgent to adjust the focus of criminal strategy against cybercrime. The horizontal docking of domestic substantive law and legal interpretation is performed to achieve a gradient balance between judicial interpretation and legislative amendment and adjust the criminal boundary in cybercrime evaluation, thereby changing the current high threshold of conviction in the cybercrime governance and late launch of punishment power.

A Philosophically Enriched Exegesis of Criminal Accessorial Liability

The central features of the English criminal law’s approach to the liability of principal offender are fairly clear, coherent, and settled. By contrast, the English law of criminal accessorial liability is notoriously lacking in these qualities. In this paper, I attempt to correct this imbalance by developing a philosophically enriched exegesis (and where appropriate, critique) of the English law on criminal accessorial liability, by reference to the structures of responsibility underpinning English criminal law. I take the relatively settled state of the English criminal law of principal liability to suggest that it is a good guide to these underlying structures. Therefore, using these rules (as adjusted for the differences in context between liability as a principal and liability as an accessory) as a template, I evaluate the English law of criminal accessorial liability.

Dietary fat-associated osteoarthritic chondrocytes gain resistance to lipotoxicity through PKCK2/STAMP2/FSP27

Free fatty acids (FFAs), which are elevated with metabolic syndrome, are considered the principal offender exerting lipotoxicity. Few previous studies have reported a causal relationship between FFAs and osteoarthritis pathogenesis. However, the molecular mechanism by which FFAs exert lipotoxicity and induce osteoarthritis remains largely unknown. We here observed that oleate at the usual clinical range does not exert lipotoxicity while oleate at high pathological ranges exerted lipotoxicity through apoptosis in articular chondrocytes. By investigating the differential effect of oleate at toxic and nontoxic concentrations, we revealed that lipid droplet (LD) accumulation confers articular chondrocytes, the resistance to lipotoxicity. Using high fat diet-induced osteoarthritis models and articular chondrocytes treated with oleate alone or oleate plus palmitate, we demonstrated that articular chondrocytes gain resistance to lipotoxicity through protein kinase casein kinase 2 (PKCK2)—six-transmembrane protein of prostate 2 (STAMP2)—and fat-specific protein 27 (FSP27)-mediated LD accumulation. We further observed that the exertion of FFAs-induced lipotoxicity was correlated with the increased concentration of cellular FFAs freed from LDs, whether FFAs are saturated or not. In conclusion, PKCK2/STAMP2/FSP27-mediated sequestration of FFAs in LD rescues osteoarthritic chondrocytes. PKCK2/STAMP2/FSP27 should be considered for interventions against metabolic OA.

Application of Active Knowledge Learning Strategy Sharing to Increase Learning Result Accounting Student Class XI IPS in High School Istiqlal Deli Tua

A large number of strategies used in lesson one is learning strategies, Active Knowledge Sharing are badly needed by students to get the maximum learning. The purpose of the study is to know the student's mastery against the subject matter of accounting by applying learning strategies, Active Knowledge Sharing and to find out how big an increase accounting student learning outcomes with the use of learning strategies, Active Knowledge Sharing in class XI IPS Istiqlal High School Deli Tua. The basic assumption of this research is the application of learning strategies, Active Knowledge Sharing will provide a new learning atmosphere for students. The subject in this study is the students of class XI IPS Istiqlal High School Deli Tua totaling 30 people. This research is research conducted a class act with two cycles that consists of four phases, namely planning, implementation, observation, and reflection. This class action in research, researcher as a principal offender carries out learning with learning strategies, active knowledge sharing, and teacher as a researcher who will carry out the design of the learning in the class. The research instrument used is a multiple choice test in the form of as many as 20 items. Analysis of the results of the observation activities of students on a cycle 1 the percentage of active students of 63% with students who are active in learning as much as 19 people. In cycle 2, experienced an increase of 90% with students active in learning as much as 27 people. The application of learning strategies, active knowledge sharing can improve student learning outcomes, in the cycle, I gained an average of 78.77, while cycle 2 obtained average 85.17. The increase in the average value of the students from the cycle 1 to Cycle 2 is 6.4 students who achieve the passing standards of learning in accordance with curriculum school was 75 then follows the results of a study of students expressed satisfaction.

The Interpretation of the Doctrine of Binary Form of Information Network Crime

In the network information era, it is necessary to set partial pre-prevention behavior of the crime of illegal use of information network to respond to virtuality, technical transcendence and stakeholder-based order of network risk society. Crime of illegal use of information network, should not be determined as a ready behavior of principal offender as a whole, and from a perspective of precise language norms of criminal law, there exists a dual qualitative standard in behavioral form of information network crime, namely ‘preparation act of principal offender’ and ‘pure perpetrating act’. The practice of ‘pure perpetrating act’ as a criminal form in crime of illegal use of information network considers the technological rules of network risk society, and applies technological changes in the network information age to coping direction, content structure and discourse cohesion of network criminal law system. The technological rules of cyber criminal law include the proportion principle of technical specification setting, the allowable risk principle in technical specifications, and the typed principle of technical specification arrangement. In view of this, the virtual nature of cyberspace is regarded as the reality of technological changes and its dual form construction remains in double space. The transcendence of network technology is seen as the advance trend of technological changes, and its dual form construction has the prospectiveness of regulation. The stakeholder of network order is regarded as the hazard evaluation of technological changes, and its dual form construction corresponds to pluralistic behavior prevention. Complying with the doctrine interpretation of normalized practice of Article 22 of the ‘criminal law’, ‘in order to crime’ should place emphasis on the correspondence between criminal purpose and preparatory act, ‘the preparation of the instruments’ must be limited to direct tool preparatory behavior, and ‘creation of conditions’ do not have specific patterns of preparatory using behavior. Under the basic guidance of the dualism of behavioral form of information network crime, a ‘website’ set up should include space types under ‘three-network integration’; the issued ‘information’ evaluation should be interpreted in terms of ‘time, nature and type’. Firstly, based on the time-dimension analysis of information release, the distribution is restricted to illegal information when the behavior is restricted. Secondly, in view of the substantive interpretation of the multiple types of publication, disguised information release act also provides a punishment basis. Finally, as for the nature judgment of the published information, it is necessary to avoid confusion with information types of release preparation act. While legislation trend towards preparation act of principal offender suffers a lot of criticism by the theoretical circle, crime of illegal use of information network as a type of network tool crime shall timely reverse the determination of discourse form and fact structure concerning an expansion of its transformation from preparation act to pure perpetrating act. In order to overcome uncertain infringement of legal interests resulting from the potential factors of network risk society, the establishment of a dual qualitative standard in behavioral form of information network crime, namely ‘preparation act of principal offender’ and ‘pure perpetrating act’, has reality feasibility, norm dredging and theoretical extension.

On the Accomplice of the Aggravated Consequential Offense — With A Case of an Intentional Injury to Death for Example

In the aggravated consequential offense of joint crime, the problem need to research is that more than two people jointly implement the basic crime, by one person or several people s behaviors causing heavier results, the criminal law provides the heavier penalties for the basic crime penalty, so the other co-perpetrators who do not directly cause the aggravated consequences should bear criminal responsibility for more serious results? In this regard, the prevailing view of Chinese criminal law theory is that the common principal offender of the basic crime should be responsible for the aggravated results, because the common criminals are the implementation of basic crime behavior, and the results may be equal. Besides, there is subjective negligence, so it should be responsible for the results of the increase. However, for narrowly committed accomplice, it is not directly involved in the implementation of the act of perpetrating, then whether to set up the results of aggravated accomplice, whether to bear the criminal responsibility of the results? Chinese scholars have different views. This article starts with the intentional injury case in practice, and puts forward the controversial issue. By examining the different views of scholars in Japanese criminal law theory, this paper analyzes various analyses of Chinese scholars, and puts forward their own views based on the provisions of Chinese criminal law. Article 25 of the Criminal Law of the People s Republic of China stipulates that a joint crime refers to an intentional crime committed by two or more persons jointly. A negligent crime committed by two or more persons jointly shall not be punished as a joint crime; however, those who should bear criminal responsibility shall be individually punished according to the crimes they have committed. Therefore, based on the provisions of the Criminal Law, China s common crime theory holds the idea that the establishment of a common crime must be the perpetrators in the joint implementation of a certain crime mean, mutual use, and complement each other’s behavior, so that the behavior of the perpetrators as a whole achieves crime. That is, it must be that more than two people have deliberately subjective common crime, common crime objectively. The so-called common criminal intent , refers to the common criminals through contacts, a common understanding of their criminal acts will entail harmful consequences to society. They participate in the joint crime and hope or indulge the outcome of mental attitude. Negligent crime, for the perpetrators, it is not impossible to form the meaning of contact, and can’t set up a joint crime. Therefore, from the provisions of the current criminal law in China and the traditional theory of criminal law, the joint crime that the aggravated consequential offense with the heavier result in negligence form is not established, whether it is a common prisoner, or an instigator or help offenders. On the above analysis, the establishment of the accomplice of the aggravated offense in the Chinese criminal law should be divided into the following two cases: Firstly, for the intentional aggravated consequential offense, accomplice of the basic crime can increase results to form the joint crime. However, the occurrence of the results of all the actors must have a common intention. If all or two or more part of the perpetrators deliberately cause the occurrence of heavy results, but there is no common meaning, only a single intention, the heavier result is only committed at the same time. Secondly, for the negligent aggravated consequential offense, the accomplice of the crime can’t be aggravated by the results of the establishment of aggravated consequential offense.二人以上共同实施基本的犯罪行为时, 由其中一人或数人的行为引起了较重的结果, 刑法对该较重的结果规定了比基本犯罪的刑罚更重的刑罚, 没有直接引起加重结果的其余共同犯罪人应否对该较重的结果承担刑事责任呢?对此, 中国刑法理论通行的观点认为, 基本罪的共同正犯都应该对加重结果负责。但是, 对于帮助犯、教唆犯能否成立结果加重犯的共犯, 是否对加重结果承担刑事责任, 存在不同观点。 基于刑法的规定, 中国的共同犯罪理论认为成立共同犯罪必须是两人以上主观上有共同犯罪的故意, 客观上有共同犯罪的行为。因此, 重结果为过失形态的结果加重犯的共犯是不成立的, 不论是共同正犯, 还是教唆犯或帮助犯。所以, 法中结果加重犯的共犯之成立与否, 应当分为以下两种情况：对于加重结果的罪过形式为故意的结果加重犯, 基本罪的共犯能够就加重结果成立共同犯罪；对于加重结果的罪过形式为过失的结果加重犯, 基本罪的共犯不能就加重结果成立结果加重犯的共犯。 基本罪的共犯是否应当就加重结果承担刑事责任? 对于重结果可以为故意形态的结果加重犯, 实行行为人故意导致了重结果的发生的, 共犯与之有共同故意的, 应成立结果加重犯之共犯, 就重结果共同承担刑事责任；不具有共同故意, 不能成立结果加重犯的共犯, 但共犯对于实行行为人故意所造成的加重结果应当预见并且能够预见的, 应当承担过失的责任；否则只能由重结果的引起人承担责任。对于实行行为人的行为过失导致了较重的结果时, 虽然不成立结果加重犯的共犯, 但这并不意味着可以认为基本罪的共犯一概不对该加重结果承担责任；对加重结果的发生具有过失的共犯, 应当承担其刑事责任。 结果加重犯由于基本的犯罪行为包含发生一定重结果的高度危险性, 所以共同故意实施基本犯罪的行为人, 对重结果的发生应当具有具体的预见可能性, 因而应当认为有避免重结果发生的特别注意义务。以共同犯罪的意思实施基本罪时, 各共同犯罪人相互利用、补充对方的行为, 这就使得各共犯的行为成为了一个整体。在这种情况下, 各共犯应当预见到这个行为整体有导致重结果发生的可能, 从而负有避免该行为整体造成重结果发生的特别注意义务。因此, 各共犯不仅要负有避免自己的行为发生加重结果的义务, 而且还负有避免他人的行为造成加重结果的义务。当共犯负有这种防止加重结果发生的义务, 但没有加以注意, 以致产生了加重结果时, 就存在导致加重结果发生的过失。因此, 共犯应当对自己的过失行为承担刑事责任。然而, 需要强调的是, 并不能排除在具体案件中, 共犯对加重结果并不一定都能够预见的情况, 如果一律判令其承担加重责任也是不合理的。

PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA PENCEMARAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP YANG DILAKUKAN OLEH KORPORASI

Research on criminal liability of environmental pollution by corporations, multinational corporations have shown a massive accumulation of wealth and created a wide range of personalities. Whereas in the field of criminal law, which is heavily linked to accountability referred to in the Criminal Code (KUHP) only recognizes individuals as the subject of criminal law. Corporations not yet seen as a subject of criminal law. However, in subsequent developments, it is mentioned in the special criminal law. The relationship with vicarious liability or corporate liability in criminal law can be described as the imposition of criminal responsibility to a person in the capacity of the principal offender, based on the offense or at least an element of offense committed by another person. The person who acts, however, must be responsible only for his actions. It takes firmness to put the corporate criminal responsibility on the environmental offense so that the corporation that carries out negligence in exploiting nature causing pollution can be punished according to its fault. Similarly, socialization is needed to society about the possibility of environmental depictions that must be accounted by the corporation. It is so important to capture community participation in maintaining environmental wisdom.

Special aspects of responsibility of the principal offender for commission of the crimes with two forms of guilt

У статті проаналізовано погляди вчених стосовно питання про наявність співучасті у злочинах з двома формами вини. Обґрунтовано необхідність ставлення у вину кваліфікуючого наслідку, спричиненого виконавцем через необережність, іншим співучасникам, якщо він повинен і міг бути ними передбачений. Спричинення через необережність кваліфікуючого наслідку умисного злочину спільно декількома особами, які повинні були і могли його передбачити, визнано необережним співзаподіянням. Виокремлено групи злочинів, у яких кваліфікуючий наслідок знаходиться поза межами співучасті. Запропоновано шляхи кваліфікації злочину з двома формами вини за наявності ознак співучасті.

다수 가담자의 예비단계에서의 범행이탈

Here is to be examined whether the member of accomplices can discharge criminal liability for accomplice as he gives up the joint crime resolution or its intent. Firstly, it is examined the question of whether the joint crime resolution is ever compulsory requirement for complicity. Then ask whether the offender who has not yet done anything to facts achievement required, can also be impunity through giving up his purpose in the preparatory stages. With that, it shall pay particular attention to whether the intent is the same with the joint crime resolution. But the focus of the examination, the question should be, is under what conditions the crime resolution abandoned. Various jurisdictions from Ferderal Court in Germany(BGHSt) and the Korean Supream Court(kOGH) are also treated. In summary, it can be stated that the crime resolution and the intent are to be important at different times, have different requirements and perform different functions. The criminal act of the joint principal offender requires also intent as joint crime resolution. If it doesn

The Tyranny of Small Differences: The Culpability Gulf between the Subjective and Objective Tests for Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise in Australia

This thesis compares the tests for extended joint criminal enterprise (EJCE) in Australia, namely, the subjective test that applies in common law jurisdictions and the objective test that applies in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. EJCE is a type of complicity that extends liability to secondary participants for certain collateral crimes committed by principal offenders whilst carrying out an agreement to commit a crime (the foundational crime). There is an imbalance in legal scholarship on EJCE that this thesis seeks to redress. Although the subjective test has been widely criticised for extending liability too far, the objective test has not been equally scrutinised. To date, no detailed comparison of these tests has been undertaken. Despite (or perhaps because of) the proliferation of case law and commentary on the subjective test, confusion still surrounds the principles and rationale for EJCE.This thesis begins by explaining the relationship between EJCE and other types of complicity and tracing the development of this doctrine. After examining the legal principles of the subjective and objective tests in detail, this thesis applies these tests to a practical scenario to identify the reasons, under each test, why a secondary participant is culpable and held criminally responsible. These reasons are termed the ‘bases of culpability.’The traditional basis of culpability for EJCE under both tests is the agreement between the principal offender and the secondary participant to commit the foundational crime. Yet the subjective test contains an additional basis of culpability, namely, consciously taking the risk that the collateral crime will occur. This thesis argues that the additional basis of culpability ensures that liability is limited to secondary participants who are sufficiently culpable. The subjective test for ECJE is therefore preferable and should replace the objective test by immediate legislative amendment.A/Prof Miriam Gani