Abstract:The position of objective imputation is concerned with the nature of constitutive requirements. This article discusses this problem in the context of the substantialization of constitutive requirements. Objective imputation and causation are two totally different concepts. Causation is committed to the issue of attribution, while objective imputation is concerned with blamefulness. Thus objective imputation is parallel to causation and should be coped with by substantially examining the constitutive requirements after solving the issue of causation. Moreover, the thinking methods of causation and objective imputation are different. The issue of causation only focuses on the relationship between act and consequence, so before determining whether causation exists or not, we should first examine whether the act and the consequence exist or not. This kind of sepration can not examine the constitutive requirements substantially in some instances. In this aspect, objective imputation carries out a substantializing exanimation of act and consequence, thus goes beyond the bounds of causation and comes into the scope of blamefulness. There is no hierarchy in the "Four Elements" theory in Chinese criminal law. Although the "Four Elements" theory contains a substantial examination criterion, i. e., the theory of harmfulness to society, this criterion has not been included into the analytic scheme of crime as a constitutive element, and is kept away from even overtops the analytic scheme of crime. There exist three theoretical obstacles to introduce objective imputation into Chinese criminal law under contemporary circumstances, that is, the insurmountable contradiction between objective imputation and harmfulness to society, the insuperable conflict between objective imputation and causation, and the unavoidable inconsistency between objective imputation and the "Four Elements" theory. Only by abandoning the "Four Elements" theory and introducing the "Tripartite Scheme" theory as the analytic scheme of crime can objective imputation theory survive in Chinese criminal law.

The promotion of Objective punishment conditions—In the comparative way

Internal Objective Punishment Condition

Some Issues on the "Objective Punishment Condition"

Legal Liability of Violation of Obligation on Administrative Law: Between Administrative Punishment and Penalty——Analysis on Article 7 (2) of Administrative Punishment Law

Systematic Position of Objective Imputation

A Comparative Study of the Application of the Doctrine of Prosecuting Discretion in Japan,Germany and China

Studies on Public Security Penalties: a Comparison Between Germany, Taiwan and Mainland China

The Application of Objective Imputation Theory in Property Crime Cases

On the Theory of Objective Imputation and the Judicial Practice in China

On the Principle of Objective and Considerate Obligation

The Participation of Qualification Offender:from the Perspective of Comparative Law

From a Formalist Concept of Punishment to a Substantial Concept of Punishment——A Comment on M v. Germany Judgment of ECHR 2009

The Structure of Crime's Shaping Effect on Penal Code:A Historical Review of the Relationship between German Penal Code and the Structure of Crime

Establishment of the punishability:an approach to politicization of criminal law

A Quantitative Analysis Of Crime and Penalty

Comparison of the Principles of Prosecution and Prosecution Suspension between Germany and Japan

Criticism on the Theory Obstacle of Punitive Damages in Our Country

Theory of Criminal Constitutive Elements:Relationship Confusion and Conquer

The Principle of Integrating Subjectivity and Objectivity:Examination from both Deontology and Methodology

A Positive Analysis of the Criterion of State Compensatory Liability

The Criminal Policy under the Circumstance of the Contemporary Rule of Law