共谋

A. Simester
{"title":"共谋","authors":"A. Simester","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198853145.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter addresses complicity liability. Complicity doctrine is notoriously difficult, both doctrinally and conceptually, in part because its underlying principles are themselves in tension. The pull of judgements about culpability must be reconciled with the demands of criminalization, and with the need protect the public. Frequently, the approach of the courts has been to focus on the defendant’s culpability. The better approach, it is argued, is to distinguish matters of culpability from those of ascriptive responsibility, and to focus also on the latter. Once this is done, it becomes easier to see the centrality of mens rea in ascribing responsibility for another’s acts. Quite apart from helping to show culpability, mens rea requirements can also mediate the constraints of criminalization, helping to balance the ex ante liberties of the accessory against the rights and interests of others; and ensuring those who do otherwise innocent actions have sufficient notice that their conduct is potentially criminal. The chapter closes by distinguishing between two major categories of participation: aiding and abetting, and joint criminal enterprise.","PeriodicalId":405419,"journal":{"name":"Fundamentals of Criminal Law","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complicity\",\"authors\":\"A. Simester\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198853145.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter addresses complicity liability. Complicity doctrine is notoriously difficult, both doctrinally and conceptually, in part because its underlying principles are themselves in tension. The pull of judgements about culpability must be reconciled with the demands of criminalization, and with the need protect the public. Frequently, the approach of the courts has been to focus on the defendant’s culpability. The better approach, it is argued, is to distinguish matters of culpability from those of ascriptive responsibility, and to focus also on the latter. Once this is done, it becomes easier to see the centrality of mens rea in ascribing responsibility for another’s acts. Quite apart from helping to show culpability, mens rea requirements can also mediate the constraints of criminalization, helping to balance the ex ante liberties of the accessory against the rights and interests of others; and ensuring those who do otherwise innocent actions have sufficient notice that their conduct is potentially criminal. The chapter closes by distinguishing between two major categories of participation: aiding and abetting, and joint criminal enterprise.\",\"PeriodicalId\":405419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fundamentals of Criminal Law\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fundamentals of Criminal Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853145.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fundamentals of Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853145.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章讨论共犯责任。共犯学说在理论上和概念上都是出了名的困难,部分原因是它的基本原则本身就处于紧张状态。对罪责的判断必须与定罪的要求以及保护公众的需要相协调。通常,法院的做法是关注被告的罪责。有人认为,更好的方法是将罪责问题与归属责任问题区分开来,并将重点放在后者上。一旦做到了这一点,就更容易看到为他人的行为承担责任的核心意义。除了有助于证明罪责外,犯罪行为要求还可以调解定罪的限制,帮助平衡从犯的事前自由与他人的权利和利益;并确保那些在其他方面做无辜行为的人充分注意到他们的行为可能是犯罪行为。本章最后区分了参与的两个主要类别:协助和教唆,以及共同犯罪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Complicity
This chapter addresses complicity liability. Complicity doctrine is notoriously difficult, both doctrinally and conceptually, in part because its underlying principles are themselves in tension. The pull of judgements about culpability must be reconciled with the demands of criminalization, and with the need protect the public. Frequently, the approach of the courts has been to focus on the defendant’s culpability. The better approach, it is argued, is to distinguish matters of culpability from those of ascriptive responsibility, and to focus also on the latter. Once this is done, it becomes easier to see the centrality of mens rea in ascribing responsibility for another’s acts. Quite apart from helping to show culpability, mens rea requirements can also mediate the constraints of criminalization, helping to balance the ex ante liberties of the accessory against the rights and interests of others; and ensuring those who do otherwise innocent actions have sufficient notice that their conduct is potentially criminal. The chapter closes by distinguishing between two major categories of participation: aiding and abetting, and joint criminal enterprise.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Structure and Nomenclature Causation Complicity Being Unreasonable Unpacking Justifications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1