英语翻译CHAPTER XV ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF OTHERS15.01 Parties to CrimeIf every crime were the work of a single criminal,there would be no need for this section.Unfortunately,for both society and the criminal law student,such is not the ca
来源:学生作业帮助网 编辑:作业帮 时间:2024/08/31 05:57:30
英语翻译CHAPTER XV ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF OTHERS15.01 Parties to CrimeIf every crime were the work of a single criminal,there would be no need for this section.Unfortunately,for both society and the criminal law student,such is not the ca
英语翻译
CHAPTER XV ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF OTHERS
15.01 Parties to Crime
If every crime were the work of a single criminal,there would be no need for this section.Unfortunately,for both society and the criminal law student,such is not the case.A typical crime might have many parties.For example,the big boss may dispatch A,B,and C to rob a bank.A to perform the actual robbery,B to stand by as a lookout and to aid if necessary,and C to drive the getaway car.The plans might further call for A,B,and C to hide out at the boss’ mountain cabin with the boss and his girlfriend providing the shelter.
In the above fact pattern,the big boss is an accessory before the fact.He is not a principal because he was not present at the time the crime was being committed.Nevertheless,he did counsel,procure and/or encourage the commission of the crime.Thus,he is an accessory before the fact could not be punished unless the principle was first convicted and even then was generally subject to less severe penalties.Most jurisdictions reject both of these rules today,subjecting the accessory before the fact to the same punishment as the principle and allowing him to be convicted regardless of whether or not the principal is convicted (although it must,of course,be proven that somebody actually committed the crime ).Inasmuch as the accessory before the fact is frequently (as in the hypothetical ) the “brains” of the operation,the rejection of these common law rules seems sound.
A,who actually robbed the victim ,is a first degree principals.B and C are second degree principal (or aider and abettor ) because he was present at the time of the robbery giving aid and comfort to A,the first degree principal,C is also a second degree principal because though not actually present in the bank,he was “constructively present,” that is,aiding the commission of the crime inside the bank by his very presence outside of the bank.The terms first degree principal and second degree principal are descriptive terms designed to aid analysis in penalty between then nor was it necessary that one be convicted before the other,and this lack of differentiation continues today.
麻烦好好翻译
英语翻译CHAPTER XV ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF OTHERS15.01 Parties to CrimeIf every crime were the work of a single criminal,there would be no need for this section.Unfortunately,for both society and the criminal law student,such is not the ca
犯罪集体
如果每一次犯罪都是由一个犯人引起的话,那么不用讲这章啦.不幸的是,对社会或是法律学生来讲的话,事实并非如此.任何犯罪都有可能是集体作案.例如:一个老大会派A,B 和C 去抢银行.A – 实施抢劫,B – 望风并在需要时提供帮助,C – 开车逃跑.然后他们还可能一起躲到老大女朋友家,避风声.
在以上犯罪中,在犯罪前老大是从犯.
因为不在犯罪现场,老大不是主犯.不过他教唆,导演甚至/或者鼓励了这个犯罪.所以他在犯罪前是从犯.就算主犯认罪了,老大最为从犯通常也不会被判重刑或者是严厉的处罚.当今的判决常常不是这样.他们常常给予犯罪前的从犯与主犯一样的惩罚.而且不管主犯有没有招认(当然肯定是基于还有其他人指正 犯罪已然被实施了)因为这些老大常常是‘头目’(犯罪集团的大脑)所以这样的判决看来也没有问题.
A – 真正实施抢劫的人,是一级主犯.B是二级或次级主犯,因为他在犯罪现场提供帮助给A.C也是二级或次级主犯,因为虽然不在银行,他任然‘推定地在现场’【你们法律专业的词,不懂,翻不出来】反正意思就说他的不在场正是为了给里面犯罪的人提供帮助.所谓一级,次级主犯是用来量刑的.不是说谁先招认,谁后招.但是直到今天都常常被混为一谈.
第一次翻法律,其实好理解.有问题找我
第十五章问责制他人的行为
15.01缔约方犯罪
如果每个犯罪是一个单一的犯罪的工作,就没有这个section.Unfortunately的需要,为社会和刑法的学生,这样是不是case.A典型的犯罪可能有很多parties.For例如大老板可能派遣的A,B和C抢劫银行。阿来执行实际的抢劫,乙站作为守望者,并且在必要时援助和C驱动私家车逃去。该计划可能会进一步呼吁, B和C...
全部展开
第十五章问责制他人的行为
15.01缔约方犯罪
如果每个犯罪是一个单一的犯罪的工作,就没有这个section.Unfortunately的需要,为社会和刑法的学生,这样是不是case.A典型的犯罪可能有很多parties.For例如大老板可能派遣的A,B和C抢劫银行。阿来执行实际的抢劫,乙站作为守望者,并且在必要时援助和C驱动私家车逃去。该计划可能会进一步呼吁, B和C隐藏已在其老板的老板,并提供庇护他的女友山中小屋。
在上面的事实格局,大老板是在事实之前配件。他不是主要的,因为他不是在犯罪时正致力于本。不过,他没有律师,采购和/或鼓励犯罪。因此,他是在事实之前可能不会受到惩罚,除非该原则最早是被定罪,即使这样,配件一般较少受到严厉的惩罚。大部分司法管辖区拒绝这些规则都今天,遭受前向为原则同样的惩罚其实配件,让他被定罪,不论是否被定罪的主要(但必须当然,被证明确实有人所犯的罪行)由于发言的事实面前配件。经常(如假设)的“大脑”行动中,这些共同的法律规则,拒绝似乎是合理的。
甲,究竟是谁抢劫的受害者,是第一次学位的校长。 B和C的主要是第二学位(或协助及教唆非法入境者),因为他是在提供援助和安慰,当时在场的一名行劫,第一度本金,C也第二学位,但主要是因为没有真正在银行目前的他是“建设性出席”,即,协助他的存在对银行以外的银行内犯罪。的第一项和第二学士学位主要程度的主要目的是帮助刑罚的分析与描述当时也不是必要条件,一个被定罪的其他前,而这种缺乏差异一直持续到今天。
给分吧!!正确的!!
收起
犯罪集体
如果每一次犯罪都是由一个犯人引起的话,那么不用讲这章啦。不幸的是,对社会或是法律学生来讲的话,事实并非如此。任何犯罪都有可能是集体作案。例如:一个老大会派A,B 和C 去抢银行。A – 实施抢劫,B – 望风并在需要时提供帮助,C – 开车逃跑。 然后他们还可能一起躲到老大女朋友家,避风声。
在以上犯罪中,在犯罪前老大是从犯。
因为不在犯罪现场,老大不是主犯。不过...
全部展开
犯罪集体
如果每一次犯罪都是由一个犯人引起的话,那么不用讲这章啦。不幸的是,对社会或是法律学生来讲的话,事实并非如此。任何犯罪都有可能是集体作案。例如:一个老大会派A,B 和C 去抢银行。A – 实施抢劫,B – 望风并在需要时提供帮助,C – 开车逃跑。 然后他们还可能一起躲到老大女朋友家,避风声。
在以上犯罪中,在犯罪前老大是从犯。
因为不在犯罪现场,老大不是主犯。不过他教唆,导演甚至/或者鼓励了这个犯罪。 所以他在犯罪前是从犯。就算主犯认罪了,老大最为从犯通常也不会被判重刑或者是严厉的处罚。当今的判决常常不是这样。他们常常给予犯罪前的从犯与主犯一样的惩罚。而且不管主犯有没有招认(当然肯定是基于还有其他人指正 犯罪已然被实施了)因为这些老大常常是‘头目’(犯罪集团的大脑)所以这样的判决看来也没有问题。
A – 真正实施抢劫的人,是一级主犯。 B是二级或次级主犯,因为他在犯罪现场提供帮助给A。C也是二级或次级主犯, 因为虽然不在银行,他任然‘推定地在现场’【你们法律的词,不懂,反正意思就说他的不在场正是为了给里面犯罪的人提供帮助。所谓一级,次级主犯是用来量刑的。 不是说谁先招认,谁后招。但是直到今天都常常被混为一谈。
收起