On the Cause Free Critique and Reconstruction

Abstract: The reason the free exercise of the responsibilities that involve the modern principles and Crime Theory contradiction between the phase grams. This dilemma from the start because the theory of free exercise, designed to pass on the theory that the free exercise of reason to criticize and reconstruction. Husband said in that communication there is a logical premise wrong, contrary to the implementation of behavior, ability to limit liability for such circumstances can not explain the defects.

Paper Keywords: reasons exist for the principle of free exercise of the decision meant the result of acts of legal interest
Cause Free (actionliberaincausa) academic theory with its unique charm, has been subject to civil Criminal scientists favor, and carried out in-depth discussion. Reasons. It involves the responsibility of the modern theory of principles and elements between allelopathic contradiction. Cause Free theoretical dilemma is, how to "Responsibility and the implementation of behavior exist," the principle of fit. I believe that the traditional theory of communication, said although abide by the responsibility of Marxist principles, but there is a logical premise wrong, contrary to the implementation of behavior, limits Responsibility circumstances can not be explained for other defects. I agree with "decision theory", that the results of behavior is the implementation of behavior and advocate the simultaneous existence of the principle of revision and relaxation, play legal interest as the circumstances of a crime to explain objective function, reconstruction of the reasons for Liberty theory.

First, the theoretical reasons for the plight of the free exercise
The establishment of civil Law elements of Criminal elements, respectively, constitute compliance, irregularity and have accountability. "No obligation no penalty" (nullapoenasineculpa) but an important legal maxim civil Law, so the responsibility must be present doctrine requires Responsibility in behavior, the behavior of people only have the responsibility of their ability in the implementation of the state against the Criminal acts committed, and no responsibility can not be held accountable for their capacity in the state of responsibility for harmful behavior. This is called "Responsibility and the implementation of behavior exist, "the principle of 0, however, application of this principle, sometimes have some difficulties. For example: The perpetrator intended to themselves trapped in a no obligation ability to act against the state and implement, because of its ability to act is no longer the responsibility, if accountability, then, obviously, "the responsibility to implement the same behavior and contrary in principle, but if not punishment, but the Law is clearly contrary to the general national feelings and the need for Criminal Law, or should be held accountable. is precisely to reconcile this contradiction, because the free exercise of the theory came into being.

Japanese scholars believe that "the free exercise of the so-called reasons, fingering interest violations (results aroused behavior) Although there is no liability when the capacity, but caught in the state can not afford (due to setting behavior), the actor has the responsibility for the situation.". From because the definition of freedom can be seen, because Liberty is a reason for setting (also known as the cause of behavior) behavior and results aroused behavior (also known as the results of behavior) composite form. Although not responsible for the results of ability to act, but because behavior is meaning in the free state of implementation. Thus, in the case of Liberty reason, responsibility and behavior manifested in appearance to a certain degree of "separation." reasons for the separation characteristics of the free exercise to reflect the responsibilities of modern composition theory and the so-called Theory of the phase between the elements of conflict grams. The reason can be fined as having the free exercise of, that the world today has access to Criminal Law theory and judicial practice generally recognized. objectivism Criminal Law in order to implement the evaluation of the object acts as criminal. But the reasons for punishment free behavior, how and "Responsibility and the implementation of behavior exist," the principle of fit it? In other words, how to both comply with the "Responsibility and the implementation of behavior exist" in principle, can be fined as the cause of the free exercise to find a reasonable theory basis? This is because the theory of free exercise for the difficult situation.

To solve this dilemma, civil law criminal law scholars have different opinions, before World War II the basic theory of the formation of a reason to pass that the free exercise of that responsibility to adhere to the principles of Marxism, advocating the implementation of behavior because behavior is. I will be its assessment, criticism.

Second, the theory of free exercise of critical reason
(A) of the General Theory of Cause Free said
Tung said the reasons for the theory of free exercise, also known as Indirect criminal or tools that analogy, said. Tong said that the reason for the implementation of behavioral setting behavior. The cause of Liberty, the perpetrator usually has the shape in the implementation of the patterns of crime in the implementation of stereotyped behavior, in the capacity of the state has no obligation, and the reasons for setting behavior is the responsibility of the implementation capacity of the state. Therefore, in order with the "Responsibility and the implementation of behavior exist," the principles of the fit, the reasons set be interpreted as the behavior of the implementation of stereotyped behaviors, with the implementation of behavioral.

Tong said that the reason is because the free exercise of the phase by analogy with the indirect perpetrator, such as Japan, scholars said, "as opposed to using other people as a tool of indirect principal offender, because the free exercise of the responsibility for the system capacity without using trapped under their own state as a tool, this point inherently different in terms, but there was no difference between the logical form, we can see that in accordance with the view of Indirect Criminal analogy, since the indirect perpetrator of the occasion, be considered by the behavior of the implementation of behavior, empathy, in the cause of freedom behavior of the occasion, the reasons for setting behavior in the ethical practice of course also be regarded as acts. "0 Indirect Criminal behavior is initiated by the implementation of behavior as a start, so in the cause of Liberty, the reasons for setting behavior (that is, use of behavior) of the set is because the free exercise started as a trainee behavior, causes of liberty based on the concept, because behavior is set in the free state of implementation of the ex Italian, so the implementation of the principle of simultaneous actions and responsibility can be fully established.


Indirect criminal analogy that as the reason for the pass, said Liberty, the regiment re-light cane, Seiichiro Ono, big cut .. jen said Dengjun hold this group of light raised cane weight, because the free exercise of the reasons for the setting in with the implementation of behavioral acts, must be have the following two conditions: (1) no obligation to make ourselves into a full capacity of the state: (2) the ability of their state is not obliged to use as a tool in itself, has the stereotype of Elements .. and also made large Xiang Ren the use of "a deliberate tool" to cause to extend the concept of Liberty with the use of its debilitating state of mind.

(B) the reasons for the pass, said criticism of the free exercise
Although the cause of Liberty through that adhere to the "Liability and the implementation of behavior exist" in principle, but there are also many flaws.

First of all, through the logic of that premise and theoretical foundation are in doubt: the cause of Liberty and the indirect perpetrator of the controversial theory of analogy. Of course, only as a phenomenon to exist, both are down by the state in the absence of responsibility to commit the crime The purpose of behavior. but study of their theory, whether legal identity nickname? this point there is not a small question. Indirect criminal is no obligation on the perpetrator using the abilities of others to achieve their criminal purpose, Indirect criminal cases exist and be used by those two people, there is no obligation on capacity utilization behavior and the behavior under the two acts. law to evaluate the two actors, according to the theory of indirect perpetrator, only to be used those who deny the first constitutes a crime, can be used individually evaluated by the conduct of criminal causes .. and in the case of Liberty, although there are reasons for setting behavior and the behavior of the results sparked two acts, but only one perpetrator, the law is only the beginning need to be evaluated on a perpetrator. Thus, although there are similar both in the property, but ignores the root causes of their differences, making the analogy theory of Indirect Criminal Theory in the logical premise and foundation in doubt.

Secondly, through that with the implementation of a serious departure from the general theory of behavior. Pass that set the behavior of the reasons identified for the implementation of behavior, inappropriate behavior to expand the scope of practice, damage Elements of shape features. In accordance with the theory embodied in criminal law the composition of Elements of stereotypes of the implementation of acts of the general theory, the implementation of behavior, traditionally refers to the attempted punishment began the concept of time. implement behavior beginning to implement behavior started, and "set" refers to the fact fluttering of flag of the legal interest created a reality immediate danger, for the constituent elements of the stereotype of the behavior. because behavior does not have to set against the legal interests, resulting in real, immediate danger, as the constituent elements of the stereotype of the characteristics of a crime should be identified in the preparatory stage. The Tong said that the premature implementation of identified behaviors begin, so that the scope of the implementation of improper behavior of the expansion, serious damage to the stereotype of the Elements. As some scholars point out that if the state is under no obligation ability to arouse the results of behavior The point, retroactive to the ability of the state has the responsibility to set the reason for the behavior of the point, obviously there will be between the preparation and proceed with the objective of the constituent elements of the obvious limits of its dubious distinction tends to, and sometimes occur does not make sense of the results. For example, one intentionally make themselves trapped in a state of want to kill others crapulence because setting behavior is drinking, drinking behavior, if it determines the implementation of its acts of killing, after the state if the perpetrator crapulence No murder, attempted murder if the crime was established. This is clearly inconsistent with the general criminal law theory and the general feeling people. reposted elsewhere in the Research Papers Download http://www.hi138.com Finally, Stone said that the reason for the Department of the free exercise of Using trapped under no obligation to state his capacity as a tool, that act in the case of insanity to an indirect perpetrator theory as a tool analogy. From another point of view that the indirect perpetrator is not to limit the liability theory that the human ability to use objects or tools, then, if the perpetrator is in the mind debilitating restrictions on duty capacity state, you can not as a tool to analogy Indirect criminal theory. Thus, according to Tong said that in limiting the liability capacity situation, because the free exercise of the theory, have no use the land force, which would bring theory and practice is not balanced, reasonable. In theory, if the perpetrator caught in the absence of responsibility in the capacity limitation of liability before the capacity of the state, carried out the crime, according to Tong said logic, because that act is to set up a practice act, addition, state of diminished responsibility in the implementation of real crime, diminished responsibility should be to evaluate the behavior, set up another practice behavior. but will be implemented based on a mens rea of a social phenomenon, identified as the implementation of two different behaviors, it is unreasonable. In practice, the act is to limit the responsibility of the implementation capacity of state, so according to adapt the principles of criminal culpability is bound to reduce its liability and penalties, However, according to common sense, ability to limit liability in the state led to the reality of harm and acts of crime subjective vicious than the capacity of the state in the absence of responsibility lead to more serious crime, so it will lead to uneven application of penalties.


Third, because the free exercise of reflection and renewal for the theory
General Theory of Cause Free observe that although the doctrine of responsibility, but with the departure from the implementation of behavior theory, serious damage to the stereotype of the Elements. Since World War II because of the free exercise of the pass, said to be a strong impact on the civil criminal law scholars This a reflection and reconstruction.

Pioneering the first question the traditional theory of scholars is Chihiro Saeki. Saeki Chihiro that "responsibility for the acts of criticism but the possibility of Responsibility, intent, fault, etc. But this criticism is the possibility of a presumption under only, they are not the responsibility itself. In this case, on the one hand the implementation of the reasons for the behavior of the free exercise identified as incapable of action, on the other hand, in view of previous capacity with responsibility for the meaning of the attitude of actors, and consider whether the impugned the possibility that this approach is not feasible. responsibility and behavior exist if the principle of responsibility is indeed an absolute requirement? doubts this is not not allowed. plus look at the reasons for advocating the theory of free exercise.

The author believes that the reasons for the free exercise to rebuild the theory, the theory has three pillars: 1. Responsibility and the implementation of the principle of simultaneous actions .2. Stereotyped behavior issues. (That is, raised his glass behavior is anti-people acts preparatory acts or practice) 3. The free exercise of reason is not punishment for the punishment or whether the feelings of national problem of sound law. The punishment point 3 has reached a consensus at the expense of communication that the cost of point 2. Is there a way to not only meet the responsibilities and the implementation of behavior principles exist, or sexual stereotypes influence behavior.

By Saeki Chihiro, Nishihara Haruo represented by scholars on both existing principles of the amendment, more influential view is west of the original Haruo's "decision theory." Because Liberty can be considered a cause of behavior and results of behavior throughout a meaning of the behavior of the decision. "that is, when an act of a conscious decision based on the implementation of the perpetrator make the conscious decision to have the responsibility Shiyou ability, behavior, behavior of people with the responsibility of all capacities to assume responsibility. the general conduct, based on the crime is usually identified during the implementation of the set criteria to determine the implementation of actions that realize the behavior is the implementation of criminal acts of the facts, or the results of behavior is the implementation of behavior.

I basically agree Haruo Nishihara's "decision theory", mainly in the following three reasons:
First of all, from concept and essence, the principles that exist on the amendments are consistent with the responsibilities and the implementation of the principle of simultaneous actions, and consistent with stereotypes of behavior, "behavior means the beginning of the decision, since the results through to the place all, the ultimate meaning of the occasion of the decision, to think that the responsibility, even if the actual result of the implementation of actions that sparked the occasion of the loss of responsibility for acts of ability, without prejudice to the responsibility of those who can be held as a liability. This behavior consistent with the responsibilities and the implementation of principles exist. And in order to start on time because the free exercise, Haruo Nishihara that should proceed in accordance with generally recognized standards of the time, that is because it acts merely preparatory acts, the results of the behavior of real aroused itself (the results of behavior) was practice the behavior. This is also consistent with the behavior of sexual stereotypes. Therefore, the essence of that is to find the principle of simultaneous easing of the interpretation of the breakthrough, and the reasons for actions and results to the behavior of the combination of elements, on the other, ease through these elements to explain itself to such restrictions to achieve the responsibility of implementing the doctrine itself.

Secondly, from the criminal nature, to say that will help legal interests protected function. Criminal nature of an infringement of legal interests, criminal law aims to protect legal interests from criminal abuse. Therefore, only when the act objectively against or threatened legal interests only when may apply to the Criminal Code. to say that the reality sparked the results of the act itself (the results of behavior) is the implementation of behavior conducive to play the legal interests protected function. the result behavior is usually the legal interest created reality, immediate danger, for the constituent elements of the stereotype of the behavior, is a real crime. If the conviction and sentencing are not to acts or threats against the law based on interests, but will not have the free exercise against the legal interests of the reasons for the implementation of actions to define, it is against the criminal mind. Therefore, Only behavior that sparked the beginning of the result is the implementation of the set period and can help play a protective function of legal interests, and avoid such an unreasonable conclusion.

Finally, the "decision theory" is not without flaws, some scholars have suggested that the meaning of the final decision for how to define the meaning is not fixed condensate natural entities, the meaning of the final decision, as "behavior began to have doubts. But I that means the decision of the defects in the judicial practice can be ex-post evaluation of the behavior of the perpetrator's subjective mental element to make the presumption, constitute elements of a substantive interpretation of legal interest to play a constitutive elements of crime to make up to explain the function of goals. Of course, any kind of doctrine can not be perfect, as the theory of criminal law Research, the cause of Liberty in theory and in judicial practice and gradually improved. Links http://www.hi138.com Research Papers Download