The Principle of Coincidence of Act and Guilty Mind with Provocation Defense

Hoondong Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17257/HUFSLR.2015.39.4.175

2015-11-01

Abstract:Criminal incidents happen, asking a prior situation is affirmative in relation to certain conditions. The problem about the principle of existence has...

Psychology,Law

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Reconsideration of Distribution of Liabilities of Crime Committed by an Entity

YE Liang-fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2008.01.012

2008-01-01

Abstract:The legislation providing that an entity may commit a crime and should be subject punishment bears a tinge of "rigidness but not severity." However,for a long time,while misunderstanding the structure of "entity crime," people have been seeking to determine liabilities born by the entity or the representatives thereof within the framework of one criminal act.Consequently,there appear many contradictions and conflicts both in legislative theories and judicial practice.Thus,it is urgent to reconsider the structure pattern of the crime committed by an entity.In deed,it contains two crimes:one perpetrated by the representatives of an entity which is physical while the other committed by the entity which is fictitious.The two crimes are closely linked but they are two criminal acts separate from each other and cannot be held an accomplice.As such,the entity and the representatives thereof are parallel and independent subjects of crime whose liabilities should be attributed to their respective acts.
On Primary Guilty Mind

Guang-quan ZHOU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2007.02.006

2007-01-01

Abstract:In offenses of aggravated consequence,complex crimes and other special crimes in which the perpetrator cannot predict the consequence of his action,it is difficult to determine whether the mens rea is intent or negligence.To solve this problem,the academia of criminal law has proposed resolutions such as the doctrine of compound crime and the concept of extra objective element.However,it is debatable whether these theories are practicable.A new idea proposed by this article is that how many criminal states of mind that accompany the actor's conduct should at first be determined on the “fact.” Then we can ascertain which one is the primary or secondary state of mind in the sense of “legal norms” and at last determine that the primary state is the special element required for the particular offense.In this author's opinion,the doctrine of “primary guilty mind” is conducive to the resolution of this long-perplexing problem in criminal law.
The Reversal of the Burden of Proof; Between Presumption of Innocence and Presumption of Guilt

Roni Efendi,Ade Adhari,Afrian Raus,Fajar Dian Aryani,Musmuliadin Musmuliadin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31958/jeh.v8i1.8996

2023-06-30

El-Hekam

Abstract:Actory in cumbit onus probandi was a basic principle in the law of proof which teaches that whoever demands it must prove it. This basic principle is implemented in the integrated criminal justice system and becomes the authority of the Public Prosecutor and ends with the defendant, the derivative of this principle is actore non probante reus absolvitur. However, in the renewal of criminal law, especially in eradicating corruption as a predicate crime, there has been a shift in the burden of proof, which can start with the accused first. This shifting burden of proof is certainly in conflict with the general principle of criminal procedural law which emphasizes the presumption of innocence. These clashes are not intended to become obstacles in the process of enforcing criminal law, especially in cases of corruption as an extra ordinary crime, so extra ordinary measures are needed to eradicate it. So reversing the burden of proof as one of the efforts that can be accounted for its truth in theory and philosophy, especially the purpose of law is not just legal certainty, but also justice and usefulness so that reversing the burden of proof can provide benefits in accelerating the eradication of criminal acts of corruption.
The Defence of Provocation – Where Are We Now?

Sandhya Maharaj,Shannon Hoctor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/obiter.v40i2.11238

2019-10-02

Obiter

Abstract:The legal development towards treating provocation and emotional stress as factors that may create reasonable doubt as to the presence of criminal capacity is not only novel but revolutionary. Essentially, the law has recognised that a person who causes the death of another can be acquitted of murder, despite suffering no mental illness or defect at the time of killing, if evidence points to provocation and/or severe emotional stress at the time of the commission of the killing leading to a loss of criminal capacity.This dynamic approach is based on the psychological or principle-based approach to criminal liability, which is founded on the idea that unless an individual possesses the capacity or the fair opportunity to regulate her behaviour in accordance with the requirements of the law, she should not be liable for the unlawful consequences of her behaviour. In terms of the psychological or principle-based approach, where any subjective element of criminal liability is lacking, the accused cannot be convicted of the offence in question. The particular focus of this note is non-pathological incapacity or “emotional collapse”, which has been attributed to emotions such as fear, shock and anger. In this regard it is notable that the Rumpff Commission report expressly held that, in contrast to cognitive and conative functions, which can exclude capacity, and thus criminal liability (see further below), “affective emotional disturbances” do not per se do so, “especially if the behaviour of the person concerned gives or has given evidence of insight and volitional control”. Nevertheless, where such “affective emotional disturbances” contribute to a lack of either cognitive or conative capacity, they are indeed relevant to liability.Criminal capacity or “toerekeningsvatbaarheid” is one of the cornerstones of the system of criminal liability.
Legal consequences of the statement of provocation by the defense party: scientific and practical aspects

S. Shulgin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2024.05.128

2024-10-12

Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence

Abstract:The article examines the legal consequences of the defense’s declaration of provocation of a crime. Based on the analysis of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court, the opinion was formulated that the declaration of the commission of a crime as a result of provocation by the defense gives rise to the corresponding obligations for the defense and the prosecution, as well as the court. It was analyzed that as a result of the influence of the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the practice of the Supreme Court began to form regarding the position of the defense on provocation of a crime, according to which the contradiction of the position of the defense, i.e. when the applicant denies the fact that he committed a crime and at the same time declares that he was provoked to commit it, is the basis for the court’s refusal to verify such an application, citing the relevant reasons in the decision. Based on the study of the principle of adversariality of the parties in criminal proceedings, the thesis that it is the defense party that is obliged to prove the presence of provocation, to indicate which facts and circumstances confirm this with reference to specific evidence examined at the court hearing, is substantiated. In turn, the prosecutor, supporting public accusations, except for the circumstances specified in Art. 91 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, guided by the standard of proof «beyond a reasonable doubt», is obliged to prove the absence of provocation of the crime. Failure to prove «beyond a reasonable doubt» the absence of provocation is equivalent to proving its presence and causes legal consequences in the form of an acquittal by the court. It has been proven that when one of the arguments of the defense side was the presence of provocation of a crime, the court is obliged to properly evaluate both the arguments of the defense side and the arguments of the prosecution regarding the presence or absence of such provocation. According to the results of the analysis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in which the lower courts did not evaluate the arguments of the defense about provocation, or formally evaluated them formally, it was concluded that this is a significant violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prevented or could have prevented the court from adopting a legal and justified court decision.
Coercion and Provocation

Allan Dafoe,Sophia Hatz,Baobao Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002720957078

2021-01-01

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Abstract:Threats and force, by increasing expected costs, should reduce the target's resolve. However, they often seem to increase resolve. We label this phenomenon provocation. We review instances of apparent provocation in interstate relations and offer a theory based on the logic of reputation and honor. We also consider alternative explanations: confounding or mis-imputation of resolve; revelation of information, character, or capabilities; or generalized sunk cost reasoning. Using survey experiments, we systematically evaluate whether provocation exists and what may account for it. We employ design-based causal inference techniques-a hypothetical natural experiment, a placebo treatment, and ruling out mediators-to evaluate our key hypotheses. We find strong evidence of provocation and suggestive evidence that it arises from considerations of honor, vengeance, and reputation. Our experimental design minimizes the risk that this result arises from our alternative explanations.
Research on the Mechanism of Unreasonable Objective Attribution

Cheng Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.191225.179

2019-01-01

Abstract:The essence of causality in criminal law is to examine whether the “justice” that results in the formation of the constituent elements can be counted as the value judgment of the perpetrator. The positive causal relationship between the Soviet and Russian criminal jurisprudence and the accidental causality theory and the “Conditional Theory”, “Cause...
A Clarification on the Theory of Probability of Anticipation

A. N. Kolmogorov,A. P. Yushkevich

2009-01-01

Abstract:It is necessary to discuss the theory of probability of anticipation with the standpoint of indeterminism. Some disagreements about this theory come from its multiple meanings. Probability of anticipation has at least four meanings in criminal theories, that is, probability of anticipa- tion as the foundation of criminal liability, probability of anticipation as a liability condition, probability of act in negative crime, and probability of anticipation as a condition of negligent crime. The theory of probability of anticipation is the natural inference of the normative culpability theory, but is now snubbed in Germany, for some German scholars adopt the functional culpability theory. Owing to the multiple meanings of probability of anticipation, its fundamental doctrine plays different roles in various circumstances in different titles. In Germany, lacking probability of anticipation has been accepted by Criminal Law as legal causa excusationis, thus one can seldom be exempted from criminal liability for lacking probability of anticipation out of legal provisions. Moreover, because of the adequate development of society and the maturity of legal system, people can enjoy sufficient freedom within the boundary of law, and rarely act without probability of anticipation. To sum up, in Germany, probability of anticipation still possesses a significant position in negative crime and negligent crime, and as the foundation of criminal liability, it is also still very important. Only in intentional crime of commission has probability of anticipation as a liability condition no more important function. However, there is still necessity to use such theory in our country. The functional culpability theory has obvious defects and we should take the normative one in current time, exploiting the advantages of the theory of probability of anticipation. Chinese Criminal Law provides only part of causa excusationis, hence lacking probability of anticipation is not only the legal causa excusationis, but also an extra-legal causa excusationis. Those mistakes derived from this theory may be corrected in the course of determining whether there exists probability of anticipation or not. On the other hand, this theory should also not be abused to acquit somebody of a crime. As to causa excusationis (including lack of probability of anticipation) which should but has not yet typified by Criminal Law, criminal theory should make them up. Innocence by reason of lacking probability of anticipation should rarely happen in circumstances which do not belong to any existing type.
The Dilemma and Breakthrough of General Principle of Punishing Preparatory Crime

Liang Genlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14111/j.cnki.zgfx.2011.02.008

2011-01-01

Abstract:Penal Code Article 22 provides punishability for preparatory act and the principle of universal punishment for all preparatory crimes.This provision encounters the predicament in terms of justification,necessity,feasibility and effectiveness.By taking such measures as criminal policy,proviso clause,theological restriction and in dubio pro reo in the respect of criminal proof,Chinese judicial practice has recovered and restricted the principle of universal punishment for all preparatory crimes and has realized the practical reason of punishing the preparatory crimes exceptionally.However,the fundamental approach to break through the predicament of the principle of universal punishment for all preparatory crimes still lies in the legislative reconstruction.That is to say,the criminal provision on the preparatory crimes should realized the transformation from universal punishment to exceptional punishment,from the rules in General Part of Penal Code to those in Special Part,from the model of formal preparatory crime to the model of substantive preparatory crime.
Balancing opportunity: Between the presumption of innocence and res judicata

Svetlana Nenadić,Ivana Miljuš

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/crimen2302153n

2023-01-01

Crimen

Abstract:The criminal-political justification of the principle of opportunity is undoubtedly of significant importance for criminal justice, with multiple and diverse objectives and functions. Despite the fact that the application of this criminal procedural mechanism in public prosecution practice has been ongoing for over two decades, research results indicate that essential questions regarding its legal and procedural nature remain veiled in dilemmas even today - whether the suspect subject to its application should be considered innocent, and whether the decision to dismiss a criminal complaint based on the principle of opportunity can be equated with the res judicata. The paper presents specific research results regarding the interpretation of the effects of applying the principle of opportunity in criminal proceedings and the legal effects of decisions to dismiss criminal complaints based on the principle of opportunity in civil proceedings for compensation of damages arising from a "criminal act." By analyzing the concepts expressed in criminal legal science and utilizing the comparative legal method to a certain relevant extent, the authors aim to, starting from the procedural guarantee of the presumption of innocence, highlight the risks of equating the decision to dismiss a criminal complaint based on the application of the principle of opportunity with a final judgment. The primary de lege ferenda proposal is to establish a prohibition on criminal prosecution for the same criminal offense in cases of applying the principle of opportunity.
Taking Criminal Presumptions Seriously

Lao Dongyan

2007-01-01

Abstract:The empirical analysis of 44 criminal presumptions in our criminal law indicates that they relax the proving requirement to the prosecution and shift the risk of doubt to defendants,deviating from the proof standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and directly threatening the values and interests protected by the principle of presumption of innocence.The proof standard of beyond a reasonable doubt should not be explained from a pure procedural perspective.It is necessary to connect it with the state power of crimi- nal sanction in the substantial sense.The regulation of the criminal presumptions is essentially a restric- tion to the state power of criminal sanction.Only when all the related substantial and procedural stan- dards are satisfied,can the criminal presumption in favor of the prosecution be applied.
On the Systematic Status of Guiltless Event

Chen Xingliang

2008-01-01

Abstract:In the theory of China's Criminal Law intent or negligence is the subjective element of crime establishment.Regarding guiltless event as an exclusive cause that a crime is not constituted without intent or negligence confirms the principle of culpability in China 's Criminal Law from the positive and negative aspects.However,from legal principle there still exists some points needed to be deliberated.
Objective Culpability and the Fate of Reasonable Expectation

Dong-yan LAO

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2008.05.005

2008-01-01

Abstract:Focusing of present criminal law on risk control and harm prevention has led to a drastic change in the concept of culpability. With emphasis upon individual’s self-control ability, the traditional normative culpability based on choice freedom has been discarded. As a result, reasonable expectation as a normative standard is separated from the theory of culpability and is increasingly becoming less significant in the regime of criminal law. The sad fate of reasonable expectation in the contemporary era reveals how much that the specific institutions and theories may be influenced where the tasks and aims of criminal law are reevaluated.
The Principle of Culpability and Foreseeablity in Negligent Crime

Dongyan Lao

2018-01-01

Abstract:The traditional theory of negligent crime does not distinguish the definition of negligence from the imputation of negligent crime, and this has resulted in the confusing position of foreseeablity in the structure of negligent crime. Foreseeability is a category of empirical fact, and it can only influence the judgment of imputation in negligent crime. The factor of foreseeability has a general meaning beyond the field of negligent crime, and it constitutes the threshold of justification for self-responsibility in criminal law. Based on the shift of a person's image from a moral subject to a social subject in the law system, people need to introduce the dimension of society and correspondingly to propose a theory of socialized culpability. According to it, the nature of culpability lies in the deviation of a conduct from the normative expectation of society. The theory of socialized culpability manages to make the concept of culpability in harmony with the aim of criminal punishment. Such a theory is relatively more reasonable, because it considers preventative effects in the teleological meaning, while still keeping the function of limiting the state power of criminal punishment. On the basis of this kind of theoretical framework, the reconstructed theory of foreseeablity could meet the requirement of the culpability principle. In dealing with negligent crime cases in the judicial practice of China, it is necessary to distinguish the cases involving the problem of foreseeablity from those involving the others in negligent crime.
Prior Conduct of Omission Offenses

Zhang Mingkai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-6676.2012.03.023

2011-01-01

Abstract:The duty to act should be determined by way of combining both the formalized examination based on law and the substantive examination based on substantive legal reasons. In the traditional classification of duties to act, the prior conduct is classified as a formalized duty under law (as the defendant of the omission offense is exact the actor commits the prior conduct) , therefore, so long as the prior conducts are restricted substantially, certain prior conducts can establish the duty to act that entails criminal liability. In China, the requirement of the "equal seriousness" of the omission and the commission by a positive act only means that an omission should also satisfy the constitutive requirements as prescribed by the criminal law. In the context of commission, the killing by a positive act is the cause of the death, and the defendant has control over such cause. Therefore, to establish an omission constitutes murder also requires the defendant has control over the cause of death. In this sense, it is right and acceptable to restrict the substantive requirement of a duty to act to the control over the cause. When the defendant commits a dangerous prior conduct and takes no positive measures to prevent the occurrence of the actual harm, he or she still has control over the cause. Specifically, if a prior conduct creates a source of danger to the legal interest protected by the criminal law, and the danger is so magnified that will be imminently materialized into actual harm without positive measures, the defendant has control over the cause of the actual harm. Omissions, offenses with justificatory defenses, offenses of negligence and intentional offenses may all become the prior conduct which results in the duty to act. Dangerous prior conducts give rise to the duty to act not only for a derivative omission offense, but also for a non-typical genuine omission offense.
Anticipated Possibility in Criminal Law Theory in Germany and Japan

Ke Ma

2002-01-01

Abstract:Anticipated possibility is thought as the reason of obstructing or mitigating responsibility in criminal law theory in German and Japan. The author comments on the conception, doctrine's development, and its' position in the theory of offence, and then the reason of obstructing or mitigating responsibility based on anticipated possibility, the determining criterion and the wrongness about anticipated possibility after elaborating of them.
Are We Responsible for Who We Are? Indoctrination and Social Influence as a Defense to Crime

Paul H. Robinson,Lindsay Holcomb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3541040

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:A patriotic POW is brainwashed by his North Korean captors into refusing repatriation and undertaking treasonous anti-American propaganda for the communist regime. Despite the general abhorrence of treason in time of war, the American public opposes criminal liability for such indoctrinated soldiers, yet existing criminal law provides no defense or mitigation because, at the time of the offense, the indoctrinated offender suffers no cognitive or control dysfunction, no mental or emotional impairment, and no external or internal compulsion. Rather, he was acting purely in the exercise of free of will, albeit based upon beliefs and values that he had not previously held.Retributivists committed to blameworthiness proportionality might support the community’s view of reduced blameworthiness, perhaps on some version of the argument that the offense was not committed by the offender’s authentic self. And a crime-control utilitarian might support revision of the criminal law to recognize a defense because such a serious conflict between community views and criminal law reduces the law’s moral credibility with the community and thereby undermines its ability to gain deference, compliance, assistance, and the internalization of the criminal law’s norms.On the other hand, to recognize a defense or significant mitigation for indoctrination-induced offenses would produce a tectonic shift in criminal law foundations. The indoctrination dynamic at work in the brainwashed POW case is not limited to such unique circumstances but rather is a common occurrence in the modern world, where governments, religions, political groups, and a host of other organizations, and indeed individuals, consciously manipulate others toward criminal conduct through a variety of indoctrinating mechanisms. Are people no longer to be held responsible for who they are? Is the criminal law now to investigate how an offender came to have any beliefs and values that contributed to the offense conduct?We argue that a close analysis of why some indoctrination cases are seen as blameless while others not suggests an articulable analytic framework based upon five key questions. We use a wide variety of real-world indoctrination cases to illustrate the operation of this framework and propose a specific statutory defense formulation that embodies it.
A Study on the Special Relation of Coincidence of Articles

Zhou Guangquan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14111/j.cnki.zgfx.2010.03.007

2010-01-01

Abstract:The types of lapping of legal provisions in chinese criminal law include not only special relationship,supplemental relationship,absorbing relationship,the relationship of selecting one but also the inclusion relationship.Based on the special consideration of administrative criminal law,there are some differences between the substantially increased special relationship of the special statute and ordinary statute in the economic crime and the special relationship in the traditional theory of Lapping of Legal Provisions.If the nature of the conduct complys with the compositional features of special law,but only because the amount or the quantity can not meet the requirements of the special statute,we can not convict him or her a crime based on the ordinary statute.At this point,we need to consider the legislative default,the principle of the infringement to the legitimate interest,the necessity of making special legal provisions,the concept of constitutive requirements of stereotyping of particular statutes,the substantial methodology of criminal law and other issues.When the conduct constitutes crime according to both the special statute and the ordinary statute,the exclusion relations of Lapping of Legal Provisions exist;When an act is classified as the type of behavior regulated by the special statute,there is no possibility for the application of ordinary statute.There is a relationship of excluding the application of each other between the lapping of legal provisions and the imaginative competing,so we can't apply the lapping of legal provisions to an act when it is classified as an imaginative superposition crime.
From Offenses Counting to Concurrence: an Academic Advancement

CHEN Xing-liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2011.03.10

2011-01-01

Abstract:Offenses counting, a doctrine in Chinese criminal law study,is characterized by determination of whether the offender's act(s) constitutes one or multiple offenses and centers on identification of the special form of one single crime perpetrated,which is of great significance in terms of concurrent sentencing.The doctrine was introduced from Japan in the 1980th and has as of attained remarkable development while incorporated with China's criminal law rules.In recent years,with more German criminal law principles keeping rushing in,a theoretical regime with the doctrine of concurrence as its corner stone has been established and academics began to turn from offenses counting to concurrence,the process of which witnesses the rapid advancement of China's criminal jurisprudential studies.
The Role of Morality and Self-Control in Conditioning the Criminogenic Effect of Provocation. A Partial Test of Situational Action Theory

Jennifer Barton-Crosby,Helmut Hirtenlehner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1738645

2020-03-12

Deviant Behavior

Abstract:The role of motivation has been widely neglected in criminological research. One general framework that sheds light on the processes governing whether crime is perceived and chosen as a response to a given motivation is Situational Action Theory (SAT). The theory posits that experiences of temptation and provocation lead to criminal activity especially in the presence of weak personal moral rules and poor ability to exercise self-control. Based on a longitudinal crime survey conducted among adolescents in Austria, the current study examines whether an individual's moral rules and his or her level of self-control condition the effect of provocation on criminal involvement. Results show that various measures of provocation increase offending and that provocation is more likely to translate into criminal behavior when individuals hold weak law-consistent moral rules. Further, the capacity for self-control affects the choice of a response to provocation particularly among adolescents with weak law-consistent morality – the underlying assumption being that weak moral rules facilitate the perception of crime as a viable action alternative. Such a three-way interaction is compatible with SAT's reflections on the functioning of the moral filter and the conditional relevance of controls.

sociology,criminology & penology,psychology, social

The Principle of Coincidence of Act and Guilty Mind with Provocation Defense

Reconsideration of Distribution of Liabilities of Crime Committed by an Entity

On Primary Guilty Mind

The Reversal of the Burden of Proof; Between Presumption of Innocence and Presumption of Guilt

The Defence of Provocation – Where Are We Now?

Legal consequences of the statement of provocation by the defense party: scientific and practical aspects

Coercion and Provocation

Research on the Mechanism of Unreasonable Objective Attribution

A Clarification on the Theory of Probability of Anticipation

The Dilemma and Breakthrough of General Principle of Punishing Preparatory Crime

Balancing opportunity: Between the presumption of innocence and res judicata

Taking Criminal Presumptions Seriously

On the Systematic Status of Guiltless Event

Objective Culpability and the Fate of Reasonable Expectation

The Principle of Culpability and Foreseeablity in Negligent Crime

Prior Conduct of Omission Offenses

Anticipated Possibility in Criminal Law Theory in Germany and Japan

Are We Responsible for Who We Are? Indoctrination and Social Influence as a Defense to Crime

A Study on the Special Relation of Coincidence of Articles

From Offenses Counting to Concurrence: an Academic Advancement

The Role of Morality and Self-Control in Conditioning the Criminogenic Effect of Provocation. A Partial Test of Situational Action Theory