Gao Mingxuan: On the rationality of the theory of four elements of crime constitution and its persistence in China's criminal law system
It is not advisable to advocate the abolition of the four elements of crime and overthrow the current criminal law system in China. The theory of four elements crime constitution is a historical choice and has historical rationality; It conforms to China's national conditions and has realistic rationality; Strict logic, consistent with the law of cognition, consistent with the essential characteristics of crime, with inherent rationality; Compared with the criminal theory system of Germany and Japan, it is relatively stable, suitable for China's litigation mode and has advantages. At present, we should adhere to our criminal law system, change the static research methods, strengthen the exploration of criminal responsibility theory, and pay attention to the solution of specific problems, so as to further improve our criminal law system.
Keywords: theory of four elements of crime, theoretical system of three levels of crime, criminal law system of China.
It is unconvincing to oppose the abolition of the theory of four elements of crime and overthrow China's criminal law system. The theory of four elements crime constitution is a historical choice with historical rationality; It conforms to China's national conditions and has practical rationality; Strict logic, consistent with the law of understanding, with inherent rationality of the essential characteristics of crime; Compared with the theory of three-level crime constitution in Germany and Japan, it is relatively stable, suitable for China's judicial system and has comparative advantages. We should adhere to the current criminal law system in China, that is, the crime-responsibility-punishment system. We should also change the static research methods, strengthen the theory of criminal responsibility, focus on solving specific problems, and further improve the criminal law system in China.
In recent years, there have been voices questioning the theory of criminal law in China in academic circles. Some criminal law scholars believe that the theory of four elements of crime in China needs to be "thoroughly cleaned up"; China's criminal law system needs to be "torn down and rebuilt" according to the progressive three-level crime theory system of German and Japanese criminal law. How to treat this viewpoint of criticizing the four elements of crime? How to correctly evaluate China's current criminal law system and traditional criminal law theory? Here, I combine my personal thinking and talk about my views on these issues.
Rationality of the theory of crime constitution
In my opinion, the theory of four-element crime does not have many defects that some scholars think. On the contrary, under the current national conditions in China, it is quite reasonable.
(A) the historical rationality of the theory of four elements of a crime
The formation of the theory of four elements crime is a historical choice and has historical inevitability; At the same time, the theory of four elements of crime has stood the test of history and has historical rationality.
In 1950s, at the beginning of the founding of New China, learning from Russia, France and the Soviet Union was the political decision of the Party and the country. A large number of Soviet experts came to China to teach criminal law theory. At that time, I began to study socialist criminal law with Professor Beslova, a criminologist in the former Soviet Union. Under the historical conditions at that time, the theoretical system of progressive three-level crimes based on German and Japanese criminal laws, which had been introduced into China during the Kuomintang period, was abolished together with the old legal system. Experts from the former Soviet Union taught the common four-element crime constitution theory in completely different socialist countries. One is new and the other is old. One is the theoretical creation of socialist criminal law, and the other is the product of capitalist criminal law. The contrast is sharp and the political color is extremely bright. The new China criminal law has no choice. The theory of the four elements of crime in China really originated from the Soviet Union, but this kind of research has historical inevitability and is the only choice under specific historical conditions.
Based on the theory of four elements of crime, a new criminal law system of China is established. 1957 "Lecture Notes on General Principles of Criminal Law in China" and other initial teaching materials mainly focus on the theory of four elements of crime. It is particularly worth mentioning that the Criminal Law published by Law Press 1982, as the first unified criminal law textbook in New China, almost condensed the wisdom of all the important criminal law scholars in China at that time. At that time, everyone agreed that China's criminal law theory should be based on the theory of four elements of crime. It can be seen that the theory of four elements of crime has far-reaching influence on the criminal law theory of new China; It can also be seen that the establishment of the theoretical status of the four elements crime was decided by the first generation of criminal jurists in New China through collective discussion.
It has been more than 50 years since the establishment of the new China Criminal Law with the four elements as its core. In these decades, criminal law scholars rarely fundamentally questioned the theory of four elements of crime. At most, some academic objections are only technical issues such as "whether the criminal object is necessary" and "how to arrange the four elements". More importantly, in criminal judicial practice, the evaluation of the four elements of crime is basically positive. In practice, it is generally believed that the theory of four elements crime constitution is convenient and practical. At present, no one in practice has clearly pointed out that the application of the four elements of crime has led to the occurrence of major unjust, false and wrong cases. From this point of view, the theory of four elements of crime really embodies the wisdom of criminal jurists and can stand the test of history. It is not a political product with many flaws, and it simply cannot stand any scrutiny.
(2) The realistic rationality of the theory of four elements of crime.
The theory of four-element crime constitution has great vitality, not only because it has full historical inevitability, but also because it has obvious practical rationality. China is taking the socialist road, and we are building a socialist country with China characteristics. Therefore, our legal theory must also be a legal theory with distinctive socialist characteristics. From a more specific point of view, one of the more important reasons why the theory of four elements of crime is realistic and reasonable is that China has no historical tradition of continental law system or Anglo-American law system. China's criminal law system with the theory of four elements of crime as its core has been established for decades and is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. Although German and Japanese criminal jurisprudence of civil law system had a brief spread during the Republic of China, it soon disappeared with the establishment of New China, while Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence did not spread at all in China, and neither of them had a significant impact in history. Only China's criminal law system with the four elements as its core has taken root and spread widely with the vigorous development of legal education. Faced with this reality, is there any suspicion that China's criminal law, which is already full of vitality, will be forcibly cut off and transplanted to the theoretical system of criminal law in Germany and Japan or other systems with no living soil at all?
Some scholars may think that Taiwan Province Province and Chinese mainland belong to the Chinese legal system, but the current criminal law system in Taiwan Province Province is based on the ternary progressive criminal law theory system. Why can't we? This issue involves a series of complicated historical, political and social factors. As far as reality is concerned, two points are particularly noteworthy: First, Taiwan Province Province has a broad criminal law knowledge class with German and Japanese study backgrounds. In Taiwan Province Province, even many judicial personnel have the background of studying in Germany and Japan, and almost all researchers of criminal law theory have the experience of studying abroad. Such a criminal law knowledge class has played a vital role in spreading, introducing and studying the three-tier criminal law theory system, and has become an important soil for the survival and growth of German and Japanese criminal law theories in Taiwan Province Province. At present, there is no such intellectual class in Chinese mainland. Both judicial personnel and theoretical researchers in Chinese mainland grew up mainly by studying China's criminal law theory on the basis of domestic education, and they did not have the language foundation and knowledge structure to study and study German and Japanese criminal law theory. In the face of this reality, it is hard to say that it is not wishful thinking to force mainland criminal law scholars to abandon the criminal law theory cultivated by China for many years and transplant it to Germany and Japan. In addition, Taiwan Province Province is vast and sparsely populated, with a narrow region and fast knowledge dissemination. However, mainland China has a large population, the level of criminal law research varies from place to place, and the quality of judicial personnel varies. Under such circumstances, it is not easy to "clear" a widely circulated and well-known theory, but to "rebuild" a so-called new knowledge system! Therefore, from the reality, through the method of comparison, we also get the conclusion that the theory of the four elements crime is reasonable.
(C) the inherent rationality of the theory of four elements of a crime.
The in-depth study of the theory of four elements of crime shows that the theory of four elements of crime is logical, consistent with the law of understanding and the essential characteristics of crime. It can be said that the theory of four elements of crime is not the product of impulse under specific political conditions without legal basis, but the theoretical essence formed after careful consideration and repeated argumentation, and its exquisiteness is comparable to any criminal theory system in the world. The theory of four elements of crime consists of four elements: criminal object, criminal objective aspect, criminal subject and criminal subjective aspect. Under the four elements, it includes specific elements. For example, the objective aspects of crime include harmful behavior, harmful result, causality and so on. Based on the specific circumstances of each criminal act, the constitutive elements of a crime are different from the necessary elements and optional elements. Elements constitute elements, and elements are coupled into a whole. The internal logic of the whole four-element crime constitution theory is extremely strict, and the hierarchical boundaries are quite clear, which properly realizes the analysis of a criminal act from coarse to fine, from surface to inside, from whole to part, and from part to whole.
At the same time, the theory of four elements crime constitution also conforms to people's cognitive law. Although there are still different views on how to arrange the four elements, no matter what they are, they all admit a fact: the arrangement of the four elements of object, objective aspect, subject and subjective aspect is not arbitrary, but follows certain laws. I always adhere to the traditional arrangement of object, objective aspect, subject and subjective aspect, and always think that this arrangement accurately follows the cognitive law of human beings. After the crime, people first realized that "people were killed" and "property was stolen", which revealed the problem of the criminal object. Then, people have to think about how people were killed and how their property was stolen. Who killed that man and stole the property? This involves the objective aspect of crime and the subject of crime. Of course, after the criminal is finally found or captured, people have to further investigate the person's inner state when committing a criminal act, which is a subjective problem to be solved. Therefore, I think that the arrangement of the theoretical object, objective aspect, subject and subjective aspect of the four elements crime is not chaotic, but conforms to people's cognitive laws and is an organic whole.
In fact, whether it is China's coupled four-element crime constitution theory or the progressive three-level crime theory system of German and Japanese criminal law, the problem to be solved is nothing more than providing a unified abstract model for identifying crimes. This model comes from the generalization and summary of various criminal acts in real life. Once the model is formed, it should be universally applicable to framing any kind of criminal behavior. Therefore, the criminal model must summarize the * * * nature of various crimes and extract the necessary elements of each specific criminal act. In my opinion, China's four-element crime constitution theory fully meets this standard. The most essential aspect of any criminal act is nothing more than four parts: object, objective aspect, subject and subjective aspect. These four blocks are enough to cover all the specific elements of any criminal act. Furthermore, in the four blocks, by refining essential elements and filtering optional elements, the boundary between criminal behavior and non-criminal behavior can be accurately divided. From this, I think that the theory of four elements of crime completely and accurately reflects the objective essence and internal structure of criminal behavior, is a concrete proof of the three characteristics of criminal behavior, namely, social harmfulness, criminal illegality and punishment, and is an effective measure to accurately identify crimes.
(4) The relative rationality of the theory of four elements of crime.
The relative rationality of the theory of four-element crime constitution means that the theory of four-element crime constitution has relative advantages and is more reasonable than other theories of crime identification. Because the current debate mainly focuses on whether to replace the coupled four-element crime constitution theory with the progressive three-layer crime theory system of German and Japanese criminal law, this paper mainly focuses on comparing the four-element crime constitution theory with the three-layer crime theory system.
First of all, the rationality of the four-element crime theory lies in its relatively stable theoretical system, while the three-level crime theory is constantly changing, which often makes people feel at a loss. Although the theory of four elements of crime has been established in China for more than half a century, criminal law scholars, old, middle and young, rarely put forward changes that hurt the muscles and bones. Even if some scholars put forward the idea of removing the object of crime, they were quickly questioned and found that there were always theoretical problems that were difficult to solve. With regard to the constitutive elements of crime, few scholars put forward which elements should not exist and which elements must be supplemented. This is enough to show that the theory of four elements crime is relatively stable and mature. On the other hand, in German and Japanese criminal jurisprudence, the debate on the criminal theory system has been going on for hundreds of years. There are many differences between each saying his own words. Even in terms of the three-tier system of the most classic constituent elements-conformity-illegality-responsibility founded by Liszt-Belinda, the arrangement of its internal elements is extremely unbalanced. Take subjective intention and negligence as examples. At first, Belinda claimed that the constituent elements were colorless and neutral, which naturally did not include subjective elements and normative elements. Therefore, intentional negligence is studied in the theory of responsibility, which is called intentional liability and negligence liability. However, it was soon found that it is difficult to achieve the "modeling" effect of objective confirmation of behavior without adding subjective elements and normative elements to the constituent elements. Therefore, intention and negligence must be added to the constituent elements, and they should be distinguished from those of responsibility. However, in the case that the substantive content has not changed, apart from the needs of system construction, what is the need to distinguish between intention and negligence? No wonder some criminologists in Japan put forward that they must be alert to the systematic tendency of Japanese criminal law! (1) In addition, at the beginning of the establishment of the three-level crime theory system, it was put forward that "violation of the law is objective and responsibility is subjective", trying to measure whether the behavior is objectively punishable by infringement of * *, and to examine the specific subjective situation of the actor through the responsibility theory to decide whether and how to punish it. However, people soon found that if subjective factors are not considered in illegality, it will not be able to reflect its due role in realizing interest measurement in the system. Therefore, some scholars advocate that subjective factors should also be considered in illegality. But in this way, what is the difference between illegality and responsibility? In short, if we go deep into the criminal law theory of Germany and Japan, we will find that the theoretical system of progressive three-level crime is not impeccable, but there are actually many contradictions and conflicts in itself. Therefore, I believe that neither the four elements of crime nor the progressive three-level crime theory system is absolutely reasonable and perfect. As far as the stability and internal unity of the system are concerned, the theory of four elements crime constitution is more reasonable.
Another rationality of the theory of four-element crime is that it conforms to the law of litigation and is very convenient and practical. I don't know much about the criminal procedure law of Germany and Japan, and I don't know how the judicial organs undertake the burden of proof in the three-level criminal law theoretical system of conformity-violation-responsibility. At the same time, if this system is transplanted to China, under the current judicial system in China, how will the public, procuratorial and legal organs allocate their respective burden of proof? I feel that China's existing four-element crime constitution theory is in line with China's current judicial system of division of labor, cooperation, mutual cooperation and mutual restraint among public, procuratorial and legal organs. The investigation by public security organs, the public prosecution by procuratorial organs and the trial by people's courts all focus on the four elements of crime, and verify, screen and prove the specific elements of the four elements one by one, such as whether the act is an act or an omission objectively, whether it has a specific criminal purpose subjectively and so on. Of course, the key points of the examination of each element are different, and some elements, such as behavior and causality, should be emphatically verified; There are also some elements, such as the time of committing a crime, which are insignificant in some crimes. However, in any case, all judicial organs have the same goal, and they all define their respective burden and degree of proof. In addition, the theory of four elements of crime has also been recognized by the judicial organs. In recent years, the theoretical debate about the criminal theory system and the criminal law system is very fierce, but the practical circles are indifferent. I think one of the important reasons is that practitioners do not feel the judicial obstacles of the four elements of crime!
Two, the basic types of criminal law system in China and the analysis of gains and losses.
After discussing the rationality of the theory of four elements of crime, we need to further consider the problems of our criminal law system. This is a bigger problem that needs to be discussed from the basic form of China's criminal law system. Although there has been a debate on how to construct the criminal law system in China since its establishment, today, the criminal law system in China, which is based on crime-responsibility-punishment, has been widely recognized. In my opinion, the crime-responsibility-punishment system of China's criminal law is basically scientific and reasonable, although there are some shortcomings.
(A) the basic form of China's criminal law system-crime-responsibility-punishment.
Identifying a crime, determining the criminal responsibility of the offender and judging the severity of the penalty should be three central issues that any criminal law system in the world can't avoid. In the criminal law system of China and Japan, through the three-level criminal theory system, the crime is identified and the criminal's responsibility is also determined. In Japan's criminal law system, the task of determining a crime is completed by the theory of four elements of a crime, while the determination of criminal responsibility is completed by the theory of criminal responsibility. Therefore, the theory of relative criminal responsibility is an important feature of China's criminal law system. How to determine the theoretical position of criminal responsibility has become a major issue in scientifically constructing China's criminal law system. On this issue, there have been three different views: the first view holds that the theory of criminal responsibility should precede the theory of crime and punishment, and China's criminal law system should be the theory of criminal responsibility-crime-punishment. (2) The second view is that the theory of criminal responsibility should replace the theory of punishment, and the structure of China's criminal law system is the theory of punishment, the theory of crime and the theory of criminal responsibility. (3) In addition, the third view holds that the theory of criminal responsibility should be juxtaposed with the theory of crime and punishment, and the criminal law system in China is the theory of crime, criminal responsibility and punishment. ⑷
Of the above three viewpoints, I have always advocated the third viewpoint, which is the basic mode of crime-responsibility-punishment adopted in the textbook edited by me. Moreover, the criminal jurisprudence system of crime-responsibility-punishment has also been recognized by most criminal law scholars. In my opinion, the basic form of China's criminal law system is: crime (crime theory determines crime)-responsibility (criminal responsibility theory determines responsibility)-punishment (punishment theory determines punishment).
(2) Analysis of the gains and losses of China's criminal law system.
I have always believed that China's criminal law system is basically scientific and reasonable. In China's four-element criminal law system, the theory of crime determines whether an act constitutes a crime according to the theory of crime constitution, which provides a basis for determining criminal responsibility; Criminal responsibility is the bridge and link between crime and punishment, and plays a regulating role in the relationship between crime and punishment; The theory of punishment determines how to punish criminals who constitute a crime and should bear criminal responsibility. "The logical structure of crime-responsibility-punishment is the epitome of the whole criminal law. Identifying crime-determining responsibility-determining punishment fully reflects the steps and processes of handling criminal cases. " ⑸
Of course, there are some criticisms of this system, including taking the theory of four elements of crime as the core content of this system. In my opinion, there are indeed a lot of insights in the critical point of view, which has important reference value for further improving our criminal law system. However, there are also some opinions that often make people feel self-deprecating. For example, some viewpoints criticize China's criminal law system on the basis of German and Japanese criminal law theory, giving the impression that some scholars do have a deep understanding of German and Japanese criminal law, but they lack a thorough understanding of China's criminal law. It is too arbitrary to measure some problems in China's criminal law with German and Japanese criminal law as the model, but it ignores that China's criminal law itself is a whole. Although some problems are not solved in the same position and in the same way as German and Japanese criminal jurisprudence, they may be solved in another way in another position (such as the institutional status of proper behavior). Without in-depth understanding and thinking about the two systems of criminal law, it is often inevitable that people will feel "taken for granted" and jump to conclusions.
Of course, China's criminal law system is not perfect. Personally, I think there are two main problems in China's criminal law system: (1) China's criminal law system as a whole is more static than dynamic. Identifying crime, determining responsibility and determining punishment are the complete process of criminal proceedings and the three dynamic central tasks that criminal law needs to solve. However, in China's current criminal law system, these three dynamic processes have not been fully expounded. The general chapters of criminal law textbooks, such as the overall introduction of crime constitution, crime object, crime objective aspect, crime subject and crime subjective aspect, until the unfinished form of crime, * * the same crime and the number of crimes, are based on static crime descriptions, lacking the relevant theoretical contents of dynamic crime identification, responsibility attribution and sentencing. (2) Among the three sections of China's criminal law system-crime theory, criminal responsibility theory and penalty theory, the theory of crime and penalty is relatively rich, while the theory of criminal responsibility is relatively blank and lacks substantive content, which leads to the lack of proper standards and basis for judging the criminal responsibility of an act after it is established as a crime. In China's criminal law system, the theory of crime is based on the theory of four elements of crime, mainly focusing on the evaluation of criminal acts that have occurred. However, in some cases, although an act constitutes a crime, it is obviously inappropriate to severely punish the perpetrator according to his subjective situation (such as the recent Xu Ting case). In this case, due to the lack of substantive judgment content, the theory of criminal responsibility does not play a good role as a bridge and link between the theory of crime and the theory of punishment, resulting in some special cases, the conclusions drawn according to China's criminal law system may not be consistent with the actual situation, and the unity of legal and social effects cannot be achieved well.
Third, improve and adhere to our criminal law system.
Although there are still some problems in China's criminal law system, these problems can be solved through perfection. As far as China's criminal law system is concerned, the most important thing at present is not to replace it with a set of other systems, but to fully understand its rationality, face up to its shortcomings, seriously study and improve it, and continue to persist and develop in the reform.
(1) Some ideas on perfecting China's criminal law system.
1. Strengthen the research on the dynamic tasks of the criminal law system in China. As mentioned above, at present, the dynamic tasks of crime theory, criminal responsibility theory and penalty theory, namely conviction, imputation, sentencing and execution, have not been fully reflected in China's criminal law system. In the future, we should strengthen the research in this field, so that our criminal law system can not only vividly describe the static theoretical contents such as crime constitution, criminal responsibility, penalty essence and penalty purpose, but also fully show the dynamic process of identifying crime, determining responsibility and determining penalty. At present, the research on sentencing theory should be said to be relatively sufficient, and it also has a place in the system. However, the popular criminal law textbooks such as conviction, imputation and execution are hard to find or vague. Whether we can consider setting up a special chapter for them in the system in the future is worthy of further study.
2. Strengthen the research of criminal responsibility theory. At present, among the three theoretical plates of crime theory, criminal responsibility theory and penalty theory, the research on criminal responsibility theory is the weakest. In a sense, the basic theoretical category of criminal responsibility has not been established. I attach great importance to the study of criminal responsibility. As early as the early 1990s, I wrote many articles about criminal responsibility. At the same time, I also instruct doctoral students to conduct special research on criminal responsibility. Among the existing research results, I think the following points are worthy of attention and can be considered to be absorbed into the future theory of criminal responsibility. First of all, unlike the theory of crime, which focuses on evaluating what has happened, the evaluation object of criminal responsibility should be the person who has committed a criminal act. Through the study of criminals, we can examine their subjective special circumstances, and on the basis of sentencing by crime, we can further integrate the subjective special circumstances of criminals and adjust and correct the size of criminal responsibility. Secondly, compared with the central task of the theory of crime, the central task of the theory of criminal responsibility is imputation, that is, after the crime is determined, the state considers how to attribute the criminal responsibility of the offender. Thirdly, just as conviction must be based on the theory of four elements of crime and sentencing must be based on the application of sentencing circumstances, imputation should also have its own judgment basis, namely imputation elements and imputation system. How to find interpolation elements deserves further consideration. Some scholars refer to the criminal law theories of Germany and Japan, combined with the actual situation in China, and put forward that the imputation elements include five aspects: criminal imputation ability, illegality awareness, expectation possibility, personal danger and social evaluation obtained by criminals, and arrange them into a system through the difference of primary and secondary status, which is called criminal imputation system. This idea is very enlightening, of course, whether it is feasible or not deserves further deliberation.
3. Strengthen the thinking of specific problems in the system. It is meaningless to talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the system in general. The investigation of the system must be combined with the study of specific problems and problems in practice, so as to think about the problems in the system and improve the system by solving them. Here try to illustrate with examples. For example, the issue of criminal responsibility. Some scholars point out that the criminal law of our country does not properly handle the criminal responsibility ability, and think that "since the criminal responsibility problem arises after the crime, the criminal responsibility ability problem should of course be discussed after the crime." However, when most of our textbooks talk about the establishment conditions of a criminal subject, they all talk about criminal responsibility, and they regard it as the establishment conditions of a criminal subject. ""China's criminal law theory regards being able to identify and control one's own behavior as a condition for assuming criminal responsibility. " "Confused the boundary between capacity for conduct (crime) and capacity for criminal responsibility". (7) We do have problems in this respect. At present, China's current criminal law textbooks all talk about criminal responsibility ability in criminal subjects, but in the theory of criminal responsibility, criminal responsibility ability is probably an unavoidable problem. Another example is that in practice, people with criminal responsibility help people without criminal responsibility to commit crimes. A person without criminal responsibility does not constitute a crime. How to punish those who have criminal responsibility? 1997 before the revision of the criminal law, it was very difficult to deal with it by stipulating that accomplices should be punished as principal offenders. After the revision of the criminal law, the stipulation that accessory is punished as principal is abolished, which solves this problem legally. But in theory, how to explain it accurately deserves further consideration. There is also the question of the possibility of expectation. The possibility of expectation is a theory put forward by German criminologists with the help of the "horse-obsessed case". In recent years, Chinese criminal law scholars have paid great attention to the theory of expected possibility, and many scholars have suggested that the solution of some practical problems cannot be separated from the help of expected possibility. Is that really the case? Without the possibility of expectation, can we solve it with other theories in our criminal law system? Such a problem is worth thinking deeply.
(two) adhere to the reform of the criminal law system in China.
In the current debate on the theory of crime constitution and China's criminal law system, I think we should treat China's criminal law system with a realistic attitude, fully affirm its rationality, seriously treat its shortcomings and improve it. In the reform, we should continue to adhere to the current four-element crime constitution theory and the crime-responsibility-punishment system of our criminal law. The view of "overthrowing the reconstruction theory" is not desirable. I have repeatedly thought that for such an important issue as China's criminal law system, if we want to completely overthrow the existing system and transplant another system, we need at least three reasons: urgency, necessity and feasibility. The so-called urgency means that unless China's criminal law system has obviously fallen behind the needs of the times and the world trend, the German-Japanese criminal law system or some other new criminal law system has become the general trend, and we will be unanimously condemned by criminal law scholars all over the world if we don't transplant the new system, but obviously this situation has not yet appeared; The so-called necessity means that compared with the new system, the old system is obviously superior to the old system, and the old system is not enough to carry the existing theoretical achievements or solve new problems in reality, but this is also unknown; The so-called feasibility means that sufficient knowledge preparation and intellectual training must be done in China to transplant the new system, which is hard to say at present. Therefore, no matter from which aspect, the view of "overthrowing and rebuilding" is not desirable. It is necessary to learn from others, but we should not lose ourselves and lose our direction in learning.
The author introduces professors and doctoral supervisors of Renmin University of China Law School. Honorary Dean and Distinguished Consultant Professor of the Institute of Criminal Law Science of Beijing Normal University; Honorary President of china law society Criminal Law Research Association, Vice President of International Criminal Law Association and Chairman of China Branch.