Studies Of Some Problems With The Capacity Crime And The Joint Crime

Capacity crime is a sort of crimes in the criminal law that persons with certain capacity can enforce. All the criminal lawmaking at all times and in all over the world have provisions of capacity crime. Criminal law in China is a mode of single sin. When persons with special capacity enforce certain capacity crime by oneself or persons with the same capacity enforce certain capacity crime together, conviction and punishment can apply directly provisions of criminal law. But when persons without special status and persons with special status enforce certain capacity crime together, criminal law has not prescribed their conviction and punishment, having several judicial interpretations only. Having or not special status will impact the social harm of crime in degree, so criminal law prescribe that certain capacity is important documents of certain criminal constitution. If criminal law can not decide crime and sentence right on capacity crime of joint crime, it will violate the original idea of criminal law prescribing capacity crime. In addition, as a result of lawmaking faultiness, deciding crime and sentencing on the same social harm action is different. This is not agreed with penal principle of fairness. But equity is the worth of criminal law, pursuing the realization of equity is the aim of criminal lawmaking and judicatory. So, in order to achieve equity in joint crime and capacity crime, we must understand exactly the relations between capacity crime and joint crime firstly. The writer carries through research from the angle of capacity crime and joint crime.This text is divided into three parts.Part one mainly probe into the defines of status and joint offence and the classifications. After reviewing the relevant theories and combining the theories agreed by author on joint offence, I describe the basic problems on the status and joint offence, and make use of them as the step forward basic.Part two is the point of the article, is to study the problem of a person without special status joins a person with special status in the impure crimes of the status in joint offenders. This part consists of four key sections, they are : Those who could not join with those who have committed crimes and the establishment of identity; Those who can not, together with those who have committed a pure identity of the common perpetrator ; Abetting those who have to help those who are not committed to the implementation of pure identity ; The identity of those who do not have the capacity to carry out genuine problem of identity crime . Identity is a pure criminal law provisions in order to better protect the interests of a specific law , Although no separate identity can not act against the law to the specific interests , with a combined capacity of the act against it as a whole , so no identity can constitute a crime committed by a pure identity. Because some of the pure and committed to some capacity, and there is no capacity in those who commit crimes also can be implemented, with a combined capacity of the act is implemented as a whole and acts, hence no identity may also constitute a single identity together with a capacity of the common perpetrator committed. Those who abetted in to help those who are not committed to the implementation of single status, says that those who have set up the "no identity intentional tool" indirect perpetrator, no identity is an accessory (to help an offender). The author of such a critical and that there was no reason why those who are not committed individually pure identity. Because it is not committed to the separate identity of the implementation of the act, those who are simply abetting, help those who are not committed to the implementation of single status is not the case, there is only room for two common practice . For pure identity of the crime committed and the qualitative problem, and our criminal theories and judicial practice contentious. There are many theories . They were authors of the commentaries, the proof refuting the basis of comparison, the authors present as "acts of nature". I believe that a crime under the penal code on common theory .The basic characteristics of the crime should be decided by the nature of the practice. Only practice is against the law only when the interests of the real dangers. Therefore, the nature of the act to be implemented across the common criminal nature.Part three mainly probe into problem of the criminal quality and penalty in a person without special status joins a person with special status in the impure crimes of the status in joint offenders. As to the complicity of impure crimes of status, the author mainly probes into the conviction and punishment of the complicity of impure crimes of status with special status that influences both criminal quality and penalty in alien criminal law. Under the circumstance that a person without special status joins a person with special status in the impure crimes of status, both the theory of convict differently and convict in common in alien theories have some limitations, and it owns to the legislation. The author suggests that first of all they should form complicity on the basic documents of criminal constitution, and then convict the person with special status as the crime of status. As to a person with special status joins a person without special status in the impure crimes of status, the person without special status should be convicted as the actor of common crimes, while the person with special status should be convicted as complicity of crimes of status.