The Study Of The Joint Crime Of Status And Non-status

According to the division of criminal subject’s special identity, crime in the criminal lawcan be divided into identity crime and ordinary crime. In the criminal occasion of a naturalperson, the boundaries between identity crime and ordinary crime are relatively clear becausethe people who only have special identity can constitute identity crime and the people who donot have special identity cannot. With the increasing of joint crime cases in recent years, thejoint crime of status and non-status is also growing rapidly. Then how to determine the jointcrime nature of status or non-status has been a difficult problem in judicial practice. Althoughmany theoretical researches have been done in criminal law, it’s very difficult to reach anagreement. Though our criminal law has provisions and judicial interpretation has rules foridentity crime in criminal legislation, legislation is chaotic and it has little help to judicialpractice in usual. This paper is based on a real case, starting a theoretical study on joint crimeof status and non-status by comparative analysis, historical analysis and so on, puttingforward its own views on joint crime, joint crime of status and non-status after researches, andhoping to help solving the above problems.This paper is divided into four parts:The first part is the basic situation of the case, including: Firstly, subject matter, namelySu job occupation. Secondly, case introduction, mainly introducing the criminal process ofSu，Liang and qin. Thirdly, view divergence. There are three views: the first one holds that Su,Liang, and Qin constitute the joint crime of misappropriating funds; the second one holds thatSu, Liang and qin constitute joint post occupation; the third one holds that Su, Liang and qindo not constitute joint crime. Su constitutes non-national public servant bribery, and Liangand qin constitute fraud. Fourthly, controversy focus, two controversial focuses: One is aboutwhether they constitute joint crime or not. Another one is that if they constitute joint crime,and then how to determine the joint crime, that is, how to determine the joint crime of statuscrime and non-status crime.The second part is the legal analysis about related problems. This part includes: Firstly,condition and nature of joint crime is analyzed. Secondly, distinguishing between the joboccupation crime and the crime of embezzlement, and further discussing joint crime of statusand non-status. There are three sections: Firstly, throughing analyze the concept, character and nature of status crime, know and master the status crime theory. Secondly, the theory andlaws on joint crime of status and non-status are comparatively analyzed. Thirdly, according tothe research of status crime and joint crime, combined with the scholars point of view aboutidentity crime, proposed own viewpoint on joint crime of status and non-status.The third part is the analysis and conclusion. This part puts forward views based on theanalysis and study of relevant theories. I think that the role of "identity" in a joint crimedecides joint crime nature. In this case, Su, Liang and qin constitute the joint crime of joboccupation crime.The fourth part is the aspiration. The fundamental starting point of researching the jointcrime of status and non-status is to give identity offender and non-identity offender impartialjudgment. If in a joint crime, identity offender implements criminal conduct by using identity,and violates the special object that it is social relations associated with a certain identity, oralthough there is no implementation of a behavior, identity has play a decisive role for theestablishment of a joint crime, then the nature of the joint crime need to be based on thenature of status crime. And this is conformed to the principle that crime consistent withpunishment, giving the justice of the referee to criminals. On the other hand, if theestablishment of a joint crime has nothing to do with identity, should be in accordance withthe offenders’ behavior nature to constitute the nature of joint crime. At this time, status hadno any effect on joint crime. Joint crime should not be constituted as identity crime forpunishment.