紧急求助!!!!!! 哪位好心人可以帮我找一些关于共同犯罪的英文资料啊。
我的毕业论文要用最好要2000字，急~~~
1L的同学你的那篇我已经用过了，不过还是谢谢你啊，2L的同学能不能给我顺便发一下中文翻译啊，我们要中英文对照的~ 嗯最好是关于共同犯罪中止的~
共犯竞合是指共同犯罪中共犯人兼任多种共犯形态的一种犯罪现象，它不仅存在于以分工分类的德日刑法中，而且在我国主要以作用分工的共犯理论中也现实存在。对于不同共犯理论中的共犯竞合，其解决的方法和机能存在差异。德日刑法中的共犯竞合在于从竞合的共犯形态中选择择一共犯人形态进行定罪量刑，而我国的共犯竞合理论仅是为研究、了解共犯人在共犯中的不同身份以及对共犯事实的作用大小，进而为认定各共犯人是否为主犯或从犯服务。
Joint offence superposition refers to a phenomenon of crime in which joint offender during the course of the offence simultaneously meets several forms of joint offence．It not only exists in German and Japanese criminal laws which are classified in division，but also exists in the joint offence theory of China which is mainly classified in role．For different joint offence superposition in different theories，there are divergences in resolving methods and functions．The joint offence superposition in German and Japanese criminal laws seek to select a form of joint offence from all forms which are superposed，so as to convict crimes and assess punishments．Whereas the joint offence superposition theory in China only seines to research and find out the different identifications in joint offence and the different roles in joint offence facts of different offenders，then identify whether the joint offenders are major or accessory offenders．
Joint offence superposition refers to a phenomenon of crime in which joint offender during the course of the offence simultaneously meets several forms of joint offence．It not only exists in German and Japanese criminal laws which are classified in division，but also exists in the joint offence theory of China which is mainly classified in role．For different joint offence superposition in different theories，there are divergences in resolving methods and functions．The joint offence superposition in German and Japanese criminal laws seek to select a form of joint offence from all forms which are superposed，so as to convict crimes and assess punishments．Whereas the joint offence superposition theory in China only seines to research and find out the different identifications in joint offence and the different roles in joint offence facts of different offenders，then identify whether the joint offenders are major or accessory offenders．
温馨提示：内容为网友见解，仅供参考
第1个回答 2009-03-28
http://www.bot.or.th/Thai/PressAndSpeeches/Speeches/Gov/19Apr05_Economic%20Crimes1.pdf
第十一届国际防止犯罪大会讲话，其中提到共同犯罪在经济犯罪的情况。希望有帮助。
第十一届国际防止犯罪大会讲话，其中提到共同犯罪在经济犯罪的情况。希望有帮助。
第2个回答 2009-03-28
IN A joint trial of two or more defendants for a joint offence a jury was entitled to consider first the case in respect of one defendant, which was solely based on his own out of court admissions, and then to use their findings of his guilt and the role he had played as a fact to be used evidentially in respect of a co-defendant.
The House of Lords (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell dissenting) dismissed the appeal of Paul Hayter against the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his appeal against his conviction of murder.
Mr Hayter and two co- defendants were charged with murder, all three having been indicted as principals. The prosecution case was that the first defendant had arranged for the contract killing of her husband through Mr Hayter (the second defendant), and that he had engaged and paid the third defendant, who had actually shot the victim.
The evidence against the first defendant came from a number of sources and was cogent. The evidence against the third defendant was solely based on a confession which he had allegedly made to his girlfriend. The judge invited the jury to consider in logical phases the cases against the third defendant, the first defendant, and finally Mr Hayter.
He directed the jury that, only if they found both the third and first defendants guilty of murder, would it be open to them, taking into account those findings of guilt, together with other evidence against Mr Hayter, to convict him. The jury convicted all three defendants. Mr Hayter's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and he appealed.
John Kelsey-Fry QC (Ziades) for the appellant; Mark Dennis and Robin McCoubrey (Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said that in a joint trial of two or more defendants for a joint offence a jury was entitled to consider first the case in respect of defendant A, which was solely based on his own out of court admissions, and then to use their findings of A's guilt and the role A had played as a fact to be used evidentially in respect of co-defendant B.
The Crown's argument (and, indeed, the rulings in this case both by the judge and by the Court of Appeal) necessarily involved some modification of the rule which excluded out-of-court admissions' being used to provide evidence against a co-accused, whether indicted jointly or separately.
It was 20 years since section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had been enacted, and with it the prosecution's right to adduce in evidence against an accused another person's prior conviction. Whilst it was true that section 74 had no direct application to a case like the present, where both accused stood trial together, it was hardly to be thought that Parliament, had it turned its mind to the comparatively rare case like the present, where the question arose of using evidentially against B the jury's already-formed conclusion that A was guilty, would have proposed a different approach.
In a joint trial B was in a better position to challenge whatever evidence pointed to A's guilt than if A had already been convicted at a previous trial. Moreover, by the same token that under s 74 another person's conviction was admissible against the secondary accused irrespective of the nature of the evidence on which that conviction had been based, so too the particular evidential basis on which the jury had found A guilty should make no difference merely because the two defendants were tried jointly.
The House of Lords (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell dissenting) dismissed the appeal of Paul Hayter against the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his appeal against his conviction of murder.
Mr Hayter and two co- defendants were charged with murder, all three having been indicted as principals. The prosecution case was that the first defendant had arranged for the contract killing of her husband through Mr Hayter (the second defendant), and that he had engaged and paid the third defendant, who had actually shot the victim.
The evidence against the first defendant came from a number of sources and was cogent. The evidence against the third defendant was solely based on a confession which he had allegedly made to his girlfriend. The judge invited the jury to consider in logical phases the cases against the third defendant, the first defendant, and finally Mr Hayter.
He directed the jury that, only if they found both the third and first defendants guilty of murder, would it be open to them, taking into account those findings of guilt, together with other evidence against Mr Hayter, to convict him. The jury convicted all three defendants. Mr Hayter's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and he appealed.
John Kelsey-Fry QC (Ziades) for the appellant; Mark Dennis and Robin McCoubrey (Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said that in a joint trial of two or more defendants for a joint offence a jury was entitled to consider first the case in respect of defendant A, which was solely based on his own out of court admissions, and then to use their findings of A's guilt and the role A had played as a fact to be used evidentially in respect of co-defendant B.
The Crown's argument (and, indeed, the rulings in this case both by the judge and by the Court of Appeal) necessarily involved some modification of the rule which excluded out-of-court admissions' being used to provide evidence against a co-accused, whether indicted jointly or separately.
It was 20 years since section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had been enacted, and with it the prosecution's right to adduce in evidence against an accused another person's prior conviction. Whilst it was true that section 74 had no direct application to a case like the present, where both accused stood trial together, it was hardly to be thought that Parliament, had it turned its mind to the comparatively rare case like the present, where the question arose of using evidentially against B the jury's already-formed conclusion that A was guilty, would have proposed a different approach.
In a joint trial B was in a better position to challenge whatever evidence pointed to A's guilt than if A had already been convicted at a previous trial. Moreover, by the same token that under s 74 another person's conviction was admissible against the secondary accused irrespective of the nature of the evidence on which that conviction had been based, so too the particular evidential basis on which the jury had found A guilty should make no difference merely because the two defendants were tried jointly.
相似回答
大家正在搜
