Identity And Common Crime

Modern criminal law is an operative norm facing to all members, therefore, the majority of crimes can be implemented by all that have the capacity of criminal responsibility. On the other hand, in order to protect some special social relation, the legislator stipulates some crimes that can only be violated by the one with special status or the status affecting the degree of punishment. This sort of crime is named as status crime. It includes pure status crime and impure status crime, the former means the crime can only be violated by ones who have special status and the latter the special status which doesn't affect conviction but sentence. There are extensive arguments about some problems about status offense, especially the problem of affirming a person with and a person without status committing a joint crime. This article proceeds the study of the status in joint offences.This article is composed of two parts:Part one discusses the general theories of status crime. Firstly, the author discusses the equalization about status crime, and then put forwards the status crime doesn't go against the criminal equality principle. Secondly, the basis of the lawmaking of status crimes is analyzed. By analyzing the scholar's viewpoints, the writer believes the basis is the social bane of behavior. The statuses affect the objective aspect of the social bane of behavior in pure status crime and the subjective aspect in impure status crime. Finally, the writer draws a conclusion that the status of pure status offense decides the social harm and the status of impure status offense affects the degree of social harm.Part two deals with the relation between status crime and joint crime. The essay distributes status crime into pure status crime and impure status crime. As to pure status crime, although the non-status person cannot commit it alone, no-status can be the common commit-offender with the person with status. Especially in some compound behaviors, the non-status can commit a part of the behavior and make a whole with thestatus. About the conviction question, the author advocates the viewpoint of "perpetrating act". Lining the viewpoint up to the theory of crime number, the essay resolve the relativity of perpetrating act .when the status instigating, assisting the no-status commit offenders, the common viewpoint is taking the non-statusas indirect-perpetrating-offender and the author doesn't agree with perpetrating act. In order to maintain the consistence of theory, the author advocates that we should convict according to the "perpetrating act theory". Under the situation of the no-status with the status together committing the impure status crime, status of crime subject only affects the responsibility and^ does not affect the conviction. Because our criminal code does not make different accusation to impure status crime, there is almost no argument about the viewpoint. However, in Japan, some scholars hold conviction should base on the status crime. The author controverts the theory and advocates that the status should be punishment fits the impure status crimes and the no-status should be punishment fits its normal crime, in another words, convict unified and sentence separately.