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.

Some Issues on the "Objective Punishment Condition"

Internal Objective Punishment Condition

The promotion of Objective punishment conditions—In the comparative way

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 Quantitative Analysis Of Crime and Penalty

Theory of Criminal Constitutive Elements:Relationship Confusion and Conquer

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

Consequence and Discretionary Action of Sentencing ——the Prohibition of Consequential Responsibility, Double Evaluation and Indirect Punishment

The Dilemma and Breakthrough of General Principle of Punishing Preparatory Crime

The International Criminal Juridical Practice and the Relevant Chinese Policy

Problems with the Theory of Anti-Value Acts: Including A Discussion with Professor Zhou Guangquan

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

The Development of the New Conduct without Value Theory in China

Current System of Constitution of Crime Does Not Have to Be Restructured

On the Principle of Objective and Considerate Obligation

Deconstruct the Theory of Starting Point of a Crime and Reconstruct the Starting Point of a Punishable Act

Strictly Restrict the Scope and the Punishments of Aggregated Consequential Offences

The Objective and Scope of China's Criminal Law Interpretation

Theory of Legal Interest Violation and the Determination of Crimes

The Constitutional Debate of Punitive Damages in the United States——the Excessive Fines Clause and Punitive Damages in China