Judicial Determination Of Staff Of State Functionaries

As we all know,the staff of state organs is a special subject,and the staff of state organs are essentially a kind of state workers,and the law does not make a clear definition of this concept,so that in judicial practice there is a ambiguity in the identification of the subject.In response to this situation,a number of legislative and judicial interpretations have been introduced to regulate it,in which the scope of State functionaries has been expanded.The official of the state organ is the subject of the crime of malfeasance.Only by analyzing the subject thoroughly can the official judge the crime of malfeasance and analyzing the essence of the official of the state organ can the perpetrator's malfeasance be obtained.The corresponding punishment,which is also an important condition for the fight against such crimes,the functionaries and state functionaries have similarities,but can not mix the two.The judicial circles have different views on the subject of the functionary of the state organ.If we want to grasp the essence of the functionary of the state organ,we must understand its characteristics.Among the characteristics of State organs,the relationship between State organs and State organs is controversial,considering that the scope of State organs is larger than that of State organs,not only those referred to in the Constitution,but also those organizations whose work is carried out by officials of quasi-State organs,as provided for in the legislative interpretation.The Communist Party of China and the Government.Whether or not the Association is in that context is controversial and is considered to belong to,but also not to include,the two,which do not belong to State organs,because it is clear from the provisions of the law that the two and State organs are parallel structures and do not contain relations,except that the legislative interpretation provides that the persons in cases may be regarded as State agents in the performance of their official duties,but this does not mean that the nature of both is attributed to State organs.There is also a simple analysis of other subjects,such as people's organizations and supervisory committees,whose nature is not clearly defined,but which in practice is attributed to state organs.The Commission is a new State body,which is provided for in the Constitution,but it is within the scope of State organs and is complementary to the organs of power and administration.It is also necessary to distinguish between what is public service and other similar concepts in the performance of official duties,which are matters relating to the State,which,if not collective matters,should be representative of the State,and which,if simple services are performed,although they work in State organs,do not possess the will and administrative character of the State and can not be recognized as official duties,which is also an important part of the recognition of the crime of dereliction of duty;There are three main theories in the process of identification,that is," identity theory "," public service theory " and " dual theory ".These three theories also exist in the process of identification of state workers and the work of state organs.There is no essential difference in the identification of personnel,and the recognition of official duties is essentially grasped,not only by form to distinguish whether it belongs to the staff of state organs.Looking at the new and old criminal laws and the legislative and judicial interpretations promulgated,it can be seen that the scope of the staff of state organs has undergone changes.In this process,judicial interpretation determines that some subjects encountered in practice are regarded as staff members of the quasi-state organs when engaged in official duties.As a staff member of a grass-roots self-governing organization,the provisions of the criminal law on the organization are determined to be State staff when assisting the government in the seven matters prescribed by law,but whether the staff of a grass-roots self-governing organization can constitute a staff member of a State organ in the performance of administrative functions,the law does not specify this phenomenon,as this situation has arisen in practice Therefore,the identification of this phenomenon is also an important issue,but there are differences between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court,so the points of disagreement also lead to different differences in the hearing of cases of the same type,which also leads to confusion between State and State agents.The staff of state organs in our country have the characteristics of our country,and compared with the regulations of other countries on the staff of state organs,we can find that their staff members of state organs are also a special subject,and have the same dual nature of identity and function as our country.As for the identification of the staff of state organs,we can only make a general assessment of the problems encountered inpractice.Only when the crime is found,can the judicial staff better combat the crime,uphold the authority of the law and punish the guilty.