Is joint criminality a wrongful phenomenon, or not

A joint crime refers to a joint intentional crime committed by two or more persons. Therefore, where the joint negligence of two or more persons causes a harmful result, it does not constitute a joint crime. Two or more persons jointly committing a harmful act of repentance in order to cause a certain harmful result, but some of them are intentional and some are negligent, and it does not constitute a joint crime.

Article 25 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China: The Concept of Joint Crime Joint crime refers to the joint intentional crime committed by two or more persons. Where two or more persons commit a crime of joint negligence, it is not to be treated as a joint crime; Those who shall bear criminal responsibility are to be punished separately according to the crimes they committed. Article 26 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China: The principal offender is the principal offender who organizes or leads a criminal group to carry out criminal activities or plays a major role in a joint crime.

A relatively fixed criminal organization formed by three or more persons for the purpose of jointly committing a crime is a criminal group. The ringleaders who organize and lead a criminal group shall be punished in accordance with all the crimes committed by the group. Principal offenders other than those provided for in paragraph 3 shall be punished in accordance with all crimes in which they participated, organized, or directed.

According to the conditions for constituting a joint crime, it is necessary to note the common situations in which it is not constituted or not treated as an accomplice

1) Where there are two or more crimes of joint negligence, they are not accomplices, and only need to bear corresponding criminal responsibility according to the circumstances of the individual negligence crime.

2) If two or more persons commit a harmful act, one is an intentional crime and the other is a negligent crime, and the two acts together lead to the occurrence of harmful results. Specifically, it includes two aspects: one is negligently causing or assisting others to commit an intentional crime, and the other is intentionally instigating or assisting others to commit a negligent crime.

In this case, each person is also held criminally responsible according to the form of his or her guilt and the form of his or her conduct.

3) The different elements of the crime can determine the different nature of the acts when committing the crime, for example, A and B jointly hit C with a wooden stick, A had the intent to kill, and B had the intention to injure, and as a result, C died because A struck C's vital part, and although the two had a common act, they did not constitute an accomplice because they did not have the joint criminal intent, A constituted the crime of intentional homicide, and B constituted the crime of intentional injury. Of course, if the difference in the content of the crime is not sufficient to affect the characterization of the act, it may constitute a joint crime, if one party has the intent to kill directly and the other party has the indirect intention, and the two parties jointly commit the act of homicide, they may be established as accomplices to the crime of intentional homicide.

4) Concurrent offense refers to the fact that there is no communication of intent to commit the crime together, but the same crime is committed at the same time and against the same target, and this should be treated separately as a separate crime. If A and B shoot at C with the same intention to kill C, and A misses and B hits C's vital part and causes C's death, A shall be criminally liable for the crime of intentional homicide (attempt) and B shall be criminally liable for the crime of intentional homicide (completed).

5) Committing an act beyond the limit, that is, a criminal act beyond the common intent, does not constitute an accomplice. Where an accomplice intentionally commits another crime beyond the joint crime, the person who committed the other crime can only be solely responsible for the other crimes, and the other accomplices do not bear criminal responsibility for this, which is theoretically called excessive enforcement.

6) One-sided accomplices should not be treated as accomplicesThe so-called one-sided accomplice refers to the fact that the acts of the perpetrators jointly cause a harmful result, but the two parties have no criminal intent connection, one party knows the conduct and nature of the other party, but the other party does not know about it, and the criminal intent communication between the two parties is not common but one-sided. Whether one-sided accomplices should be treated as joint crimes is still controversial in theory, and the general position in China's criminal law is the negative theory, that is, the situation of one-sided accomplices should not be handled as joint crimes.

7) Acts such as harboring, shielding, harboring, or selling stolen goods in the case of conspiracy after the fact, because there was no conspiracy in advance and no conspiracy in the course of committing the crime, so there is no subjective condition for accomplices.