I happened to take a closer look at this series of doctrines when I was debating a case. There are currently three main views: the subjective danger theory, the objective danger theory, and the subjective and objective consistency theory.

1. Subjective danger theory: It is believed that as long as the perpetrator subjectively believes that his behavior is in danger of infringing upon legal interests when committing an act, he can be convicted. This is what you are saying. Person A intentionally kills someone. Even if he shoots the scarecrow, it is an intentional attempt to kill someone. The origin of this doctrine is mainly special precautionism. However, according to this point of view, the perpetrator mistook the sugar for arsenic and poisoned the victim with sugar. Such behavior also constituted attempted intentional homicide. This view is suspected of expanding the scope of attack and is highly controversial.

2. Objective danger theory: It is believed that the perpetrator's behavior must objectively pose a risk of infringing upon legal interests in order to be convicted. That is the view held by Zhang Mingkai - shooting the scarecrow is actually harmless, so it cannot be convicted and punished. The reason why the "superstitious crime" example of w putting his hands in his pockets does not constitute a crime is because it cannot be committed by means, while shooting the scarecrow cannot be committed by objects. This is different from the direction of the three theories we have discussed. I This article mainly analyzes the identification of harm to legal interests from the perspective of three doctrines.

3. The theory of subjective and objective consistency: when the actor commits the act, he subjectively intends to infringe upon legal interests, and from the perspective of public perception, his act is also believed to be infringing upon legal interests at the time, then the actor constitutes crime. For example: Both the perpetrator and the onlookers thought that the gun in the perpetrator's hand had bullets, and the perpetrator pointed the gun at the victim's head and shot, but the gun was empty. According to the subjective and objective consensus, the perpetrator committed intentional homicide. This compromise view is currently more mainstream. (If the scarecrow is indeed a human being from the perspective of a third person, then A intentionally attempted murder)

Zhang Mingkai adheres to the theory of objective danger, and spent a large amount of time in the fourth edition of Criminal Law to refute the consistency of subjectivity and objectivity. explain. I don’t remember the details clearly, but I only remember two points: First, the theory is unscientific (I remember laughing to death when I saw this sentence, and I immediately thought of the popular Internet saying ""This is not scientific, it must be I opened it the wrong way”); Secondly, the so-called perspective of public perception is not only difficult to confirm, but may also become the referee’s perception.