|
|
|
| Logical Falsification and Legislative Transcendence of the “Statutory” Principle for Crimes Committed by “Units” —In the Perspective of “Interpretation of Article 30” |
| Sun Daocui |
| College for Criminal Law Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract According to “Interpretation of Article 30”, the members of a unit should bear responsibility when the natural person of a unit commits a crime not expressly defined by law, but this interpretation contradicts the “statutory” principle of unit crimes, and the single penalty system. The absolute negation of members’ responsibility is obviously improper, the idea that members do bear responsibility is generally agreed, but the future lies in improving the related laws. The criminal responsibility in a crime committed by a unit should follow the principle of objective (behavior) accountability and subjective accountability with organic combination and consideration of fact and norm, and a unit and its members together bearing responsibility for a crime committed by a unit but not expressly defined by law. There should be no blank in legislation concerning unitcommitted crimes, which should be clearly defined in law. In addition, the current dual punishment system should be negated that the same penalty criterion should be applied to a unit and an natural person for the same crime, and the discourse of “unitcommitted crime” should be substituted with “corporation crime”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017, Vol. 38 
