The theory of the original moral contribution

There is no doubt that in order to commit a crime, someone must apply to commit it in order to achieve the criminal result, that is, there must be an actor for the crime that constitutes it, which is called the physical actor of it ([1]), and it may be just a motive that takes over through another person the implementation of the crime so that the first is considered an indirect actor while the second represents the material will to carry out the crime ([2])and whether the person who directed it is not qualified to bear criminal responsibility or was in good faith, in the case The first is considered the instigator as the original actor and the person who received the incitement as an accomplice ([3])In the second case, we believe that the instigator used a person who is irresponsible for lack of awareness or discrimination, such as a minor and a madman, or was in good faith because he did not have criminal intent([4]), is this considered the perpetrator of the crime or is he only an instigator?. The issue of the moral actor of the crime raised in the circles of jurisprudence a dispute about the extent to which he is considered the original perpetrator of the crime, so there was an opinion opposing it, while others supported this ([5]).