Study On Joint Crimes Related With Internet Service Provider

The paper focuses on the crimes of internet and studies the theory of Joint Crimes from the starting point of internet service provider.The crime of subjects involved in internet service provider should be classified and the research would be easy. Whether the crime of subjects related with internet service provider could be Joint Crimes depends on breaking the obstacles of the existing theory. And the reasonable and effective path of imputation would be found. This article will be divided into four parts.Part Ⅰ: Firstly, the studying of crime of subjects which involved in internet service provider must figure out the specific meaning of internet service provider and the position of the network operation. Secondly, the classification of internet service provider in Civil Law can be used in the Criminal Law. Thirdly, listing the current illegal cases of network can point out realistic necessity. Lastly, according of criminal problems in current network environment, four main characteristics of crime by internet service provider can be analyzed.Part Ⅱ: Firstly, joint intent in subjective aspect of Joint Crimes should be analyzed in Joint Crimes related with internet service provider. Whether internet service provider could recognize the danger of its service and support other subjects perform crimes should be judged, that is to say, “knowingly” of internet service provider is important. Otherwise, internet service provider offered supportive behavior and his criminal intent performed earlier than the other subjects who perform the executive conduct. Secondly, intention liaison which is important in the traditional theory of Joint Crimes is also prominent in the behavior of subjects which involved with internet service provider. The internet service provider who provides technology supporting and the one with information contents are different in the recognition of intention liaison. The intention liaison between unilateral accompliceand internet service provider together with other network subjects. Lastly, the intention liaison of this paper is different from the one of unilateral accomplice. So the problem in this paper can not solved by the theory of unilateral accomplice. Intention liaison is not equal with joint intent. And the content of intention liaison is not as specific and clear as the content of joint intent. The form of intention liaison is not specific and the criminal suspect in the period of declaration of will is also not specific. The establishment of offer and commitment in reward advertisement is similar. The theory of Civil Law and Criminal Law is likely. When the performer accepts the supportive meaning from internet service provider and perform criminal act by the help from internet service provider, the intention liaison can be recognized and the subjective element of intention of joint crime is met.Part Ⅲ: Joint act which is important in the theory of Joint Crimes should be read and analyzed. Firstly, the crime act between internet service provider looks like the individual act because there is not intention liaison and not contact, together with the simultaneous acts. The technology support of internet service provider is very important for the network operation. Although internet service provider acts as the role of help, his value can not be despised. The technical characteristics of internet service provider show that the non-act of internet service provider is becoming generalization. Secondly, due to the theory of subordination of accomplices, when the behavior of other network users can not be recognized as crime, the behavior of internet service provider can not be recognized as Joint Crime even if internet service provider is very dangerous. And the rule of suiting punishment to crime can not be performed. Thirdly, the solution should be found. The theory of minimum dependency in “Three-stage” of criminal theory system is reasonable, but it is not compatible to “four important items”. The theory of “taking accomplice behavior as principal offender” is not reasonable in the current legislation and judicial interpretation. Lastly, The very dangerous behavior of internet service provider can be recognized as the non-act crime. This is a transitional way and when “Three-stage” of criminal theory system is adopted in the theory, the crime related with internet service provider can be recognized as Joint Crime.Part Ⅳ:Whether Joint Crime related with internet service provider should be identified as crime must think Holistically. The correct legal concept should be set up. The principle of technology neutrality should combine with the principle of criminal restrain and the principle of criminal guarantee. And sin or not sin should be balanced. The ninth amendment of Criminal Law(draft) shows that it is necessary to make seriously dangerous act of internet service provider into crime. The path to solve these problems should have three steps. There are two key problems related with internet service provider. The first one is how to recognize the intention liaison among subjects. The second one is how to reasonably deal with the problem that executive conduct does not meet constitutive elements of crime but the supportive act need to be criminated. The first step is that the standard of “knowingly” of internet service provider should be established. The intent of joint between internet service provider and other subjects is existed when they have intention liaison. The second step is that when executive conduct does not meet the traditional theory of Joint Crime, the internet service provider which has the necessity of criminal punishment could constitute a crime by technical measures of non-act. This is a transitional measure. The third step is that “Three-stage” of criminal theory system could be accepted and theory of minimum dependency should be adopted. So the internet service provider which has serious social harmfulness should be committed crime.