Abstract: The distinction between pure status crime and impure status crime, and the confirmation of the complicity by offenders without special status and pure status offenders are among the major issues of status crime research, which also focus on the conviction and punishment of jointoffense committed by offenders without special status, pure status offenders, and that of jointoffense by mixed status ones. The judicial practice home is opting to adopt severe penalty, confirming the complicity of offenders without special status in jointstatus offenses. It's also commonplace that offenses committed by mixed status offenders should be convicted and sentenced according to principal offenders or major offenders, suggesting severe sentence doctrine and judicial arbitrariness. Chinese criminal law circle investigate into international statuscrime theories from a whatis perspective. On the other hand, they probe into jointoffense in status crime in light of the 382 article of the Criminal Code and its legal interpretation. Conclusions drawn hence segregate stipulations of jointoffense in the Criminal Code. Nor can they suffice reference to the balanced rationale in sentencing after equalizing conviction of offenders without special status and status offenders in foreign judicial practice, let alone the ignorance of relevant rational traditional specifications passed down from Tang Dynasty. The present article, from a whatshouldbe perspective, argues that just as corruption offense does not fall into the category of pure status crime, nor do nonstatus offenders into the category of status offenders, and that nonstatus, impure status, and mixed status offenders should be convicted and sentenced separately except for express provision.

Key words: Key words： , pure status offenders, impure status offenders, the accomplice of status crime, subordination of accomplice, major offense behavior, separate conviction