The Research Of Identity In The Joint Offence Field

Since Professor Ma KeChang published the relationship between and jointoffence and identity in the law in1986,scholars have began to set off a boom of theresearch on joint offence and the identity relation.The theory of joint offence means asthe desperated theory of criminal law.With combined different identities and jointoffence、no clear specified in certain section of criminal law and different Supremepeople’s Court judicial interpretations,it caused so many questions.This article summarizes several typical cases in practice, to explore the problemsof the joint offence and the identity relation.This paper is divided into six parts. Itmainly introduces many theories as well as national legislative experience andin-depth analysis the theory, in order to achieve the Penal Code purposes that ispunishing crimes and protecting the legal interests.The first part cuts into the topic by three typical cases, and then summarizes theproblems in practice.The second part introduces the model of the joint offence system which is basedon analyzing the legislation and forms a special classification that co-prisoners playan important role while the instigator listed in principal offender, accomplice andcoerced offender as a special case.It points out that the model of the joint offencesystem encounters the difficulties in the face of the identity. Followed by analysis ofjudicial interpretations of the joint offence and the identity,it has a change from"stressing a principal nature of the crime" to "emphasizing the identity of the joint role. This progress is welcome, which recognized identity of the importance in thecrime of conviction and sentencing.But there are still deficiencies, such as lack oflegislative model.The third part analyzes no identity with the implementation status violatescommon identity.I believe whether no identity can constitute Status Crime JointPerpetrators or not should be treated differently. NO identity can not be establishedPerpetrator when the crime should be personally committed.NO identity and identitycan together constitute Perpetrator in other cases. On the identification of identity andthe identity of the common implementation of Status Crime, the author argues that thespecial status should be adhered with considering the duties.The fourth part discusses the different identities. Though judicial interpretationsemphasize the basic characteristics of the main culprits to the conviction andsentencing, there are many theories such as act theory, conviction theory and so on.Inthis paper, the author thinks solving the problem should be in accordance with theprinciples of Imaginative Joinder to deal with.The fifth part argues that the identities instigate no identities. The paper does notagree with Indirect Guilt.Once the identities play the role of identity, even if theappearance looks belong abetting acts and abettors’ conducts can be considered as partof the crime for identity, it will will achieve the purpose of the crime and the two sidesshall constitute the identity crime name accomplice and then, the distinct betweenmain accomplice.Part6explores the situation identity abets no identity to carry out impure StatusCrime. At present, there are three modes of conviction.Because impure identityprisoners mainly affect sentencing and Criminal Law emphasizes personalresponsibility, the identity is sentenced with the identity and no identity is held to beliable in accordance with the ordinary penalties.