What are the contents of the criminal constitution in the theoretical system of criminal law in China?

China's criminal law theory system includes the following contents:

Objectively illegal, subjectively responsible.

Objective illegal elements: subject, harmful behavior, object, harmful result and causality.

Objective reasons: self-defense, emergency avoidance, victim's commitment.

1. Constitutive elements of crime, subject, subjective aspect, objective aspect, criminal object.

2. The subject of a crime refers to a natural person or unit that has committed an act that endangers society and should bear criminal responsibility according to law.

3. The subjective aspect of crime refers to the psychological attitude of the criminal subject towards his own behavior and its harmful consequences to society.

4. The objective aspect of crime refers to the objective external factual characteristics stipulated in the criminal law, which indicates that the behavior violates the social relations protected by the criminal law. Is a necessary element to constitute a crime.

5. The criminal object refers to the social relations protected by China's criminal law and infringed by criminal acts.

Extended data:

Reasons for Refusing the Law and the Criminal Constitution System in China's Criminal Law Theory System

On the one hand, the traditional criminal law theory in China holds that the behavior conforms to the constitution of a crime, and the crime is established, and the constitution of a crime is the only basis for determining a crime.

On the other hand, it studies justifiable defense and emergency avoidance beyond the constitution of crime or even after the number of crimes, and holds that justifiable defense and emergency avoidance are behaviors that conform to the constitution of crime in form and have no social harm in essence.

However, the traditional crime constitution system is self-contradictory: the crime constitution is the only basis for determining a crime, but the behavior that conforms to the crime constitution does not necessarily constitute a crime; The constitution of a crime is harmful to society, but it is not necessarily harmful to society if it conforms to the constitution of a crime.

From a practical point of view, the traditional criminal theory system only considers excluding the causes of crime after affirming that the behavior conforms to all the constitutive elements of crime, so it cannot exclude the establishment of crime as soon as possible.

This is not conducive to the guarantee function of crime constitution, to restricting judicial power and protecting the freedom of the actor. For example, in judicial practice, almost 100% of the executors of self-defense are detained first and then arrested. This practice may be related to the four-element system.

Professor Li Hong insists on the four elements system in form, but gives a new explanation to the content of the four elements. He points out: "In our country, the constitution of a crime is the unity of formal elements and substantive elements, and the behavior conforms to the constitution of a crime.

It means that the behavior not only conforms to the outline or framework of a specific crime in form, but also has a considerable degree of social harm necessary for the establishment of the crime in essence. "

"The constitution of crime in China is the unity of positive and negative factors of crime."

"In theory, when the act conforms to the constitution of a specific crime, it actually means that the act cannot be a reason to exclude crimes such as self-defense and emergency avoidance.

In other words, before this conclusion is reached, it has been judged that the behavior is not legitimate acts such as self-defense and emergency avoidance, otherwise it is impossible to make such a conclusion. "

In Professor Li Hong's view, the four elements are positive elements of a crime. It does not belong to self-defense and emergency avoidance, but it belongs to the negative elements of crime constitution.

In this case, we should study self-defense and emergency avoidance in the constitution of crime, not in the constitution of crime.

However, as Professor Li Hong said: "The reality is that all kinds of criminal law textbooks explain and discuss self-defense and emergency avoidance as the reasons for excluding crimes after telling the theory of crime constitution.

This arrangement system is easy to give people the impression that self-defense seems to conform to a certain crime constitution in form, but in essence it is not only harmless to society, but also beneficial to the country and people.

Therefore, it is essentially negative after formally explaining that it conforms to the constitution of the crime.

However, this understanding is wrong. In fact, China's "General Introduction to Criminal Law" clearly points out:' The exclusion of criminal causes in China's criminal law does not meet or does not have all the constitutive elements of a crime, but it is objectively similar to some crimes'. "

The viewpoint of this paper is that even if the object of crime and the objective aspect of crime are regarded as the constitutive elements of illegality, self-defense and emergency avoidance should not be dealt with outside the constitution of crime.

This is because self-defense and emergency avoidance are only objectively similar to some crimes, so it is necessary to explain that they do not constitute a crime or do not meet the objective elements of a crime.

Then, justifiable defense and emergency avoidance should be discussed as the negative elements in the objective elements (or later), not after the constitution of the crime, let alone after the number of crimes.

Therefore, on this issue, whether it is the misunderstanding of readers or the arrangement error of editors needs further consideration.

At least, the four elements system advocated by Professor Li Hong gives people the impression of "objective violation (including object and objective elements)-responsibility (including subject and subjective elements)-no objective violation (self-defense, emergency avoidance, etc.). )".

However, it is not ideal to judge the illegality of this system. Moreover, it is quite common that traditional textbooks say that self-defense and emergency avoidance conform to the constitution of crime in form.

Professor Feng Yadong, who insists on the four-element system and partially modifies the four-element content, believes that; "It is not the best arrangement for judicial application to directly incorporate all issues (that is, legitimacy issues-the description of the summoned person) into the crime establishment system.

To construct a scientific, concise, clear and practical criminal law interpretation system, two aspects should be strictly distinguished under the framework of criminology: First, the problem of' crime establishment system' (crime constitution) which only needs to clarify the basic conditions of crime establishment.

Second, on this basis, the problem of "special forms related to the establishment of crime"; As a special form, "excluding criminal behavior" should be discussed by setting different subjective and objective standards in the form of a special chapter outside the crime establishment system. "

However, this view is worth pondering: first, the criteria for establishing a crime and the criteria for denying it (affirmation and negation) are the same, so I'm afraid we can't set different subjective and objective criteria for excluding criminal acts outside the system of establishing a crime.

According to the viewpoint of infringement of legal interests, acts such as self-defense and emergency avoidance are the results of measuring legal interests.

When the actor carries out acts such as self-defense and emergency avoidance, causing losses to others, although it infringes on the legal interests of others, it protects the superior or equal legal interests.

Once different standards are adopted for establishing crime and denying crime, there is no standard for determining crime;

Moreover, because of different standards, there will be a case where an act constitutes a crime according to the criteria for establishing a crime and does not constitute a crime according to the criteria for excluding a crime. Second, because there are many reasons for violating the law, it is impossible to study the composition of this crime in a special chapter.

Even if a special chapter is set up, it should be set after the illegal elements, not after the liability elements.

Third, it is generally impossible for a case to have multiple reasons to prevent it from breaking the law. Therefore, after discussing the elements showing illegality, it will not add any burden to the judicial organs to discuss the reasons for preventing illegality.

On the contrary, as mentioned above, after examining whether the behavior meets the constitutive requirements as a type of illegality, we will examine whether the behavior has the reason of violating the law.

With the irresponsible judgment, not only judicial resources are saved, but also theoretical contradictions and judicial misjudgment will not occur.

In this case, for judicial application, an optimal arrangement is that after discussing the constitutive elements of illegality, the reasons for blocking illegality must be discussed.

Chinese government network-the causes of illegal obstruction and the system of crime constitution