共同犯罪是与单独犯罪对应的犯罪形式，其相对于后者具有更大的社会危害性，因而也是历来统治阶级打击的重点，从严惩治的后果便是我国共同犯罪中死刑适用严重，存在着过度报应的情况，直接影响了我国死刑适用的总体状况。因此，区别共同犯罪的复杂情况，分析共同犯罪人的不同地位，进而限制共同犯罪中的死刑适用，这对于限制和减少我国的死刑适用具有重要的意义。 共同犯罪中死刑的适用是与共同犯罪的处理原则和当时的死刑政策紧密联系在一起的。追溯历史可以发现，一方面共同犯罪的刑事责任经历了由同等责任到区别责任再发展为个别责任的历程，另一方面死刑的发展也由兴盛历经泛滥而走向限缩和消亡，这便决定了共同犯罪中的死刑适用也经历了一个由泛滥到限制的历史进程。 以“严格限制死刑”的政策为指导，对共同犯罪适用死刑时应遵循谦抑性原则、均衡性原则和区别性原则。死刑适用条件是司法适用死刑的实质标准，“罪行极其严重”是死刑适用的总标准。在共同犯罪案件中，死刑适用条件中“罪行”的含义应是双重的，一方面是指共同所实施的整个犯罪，另一方面是指各个共犯人个人所实施的具体罪行，只有无论是整体衡量还是个体评价，行为人都属于“罪行极其严重”时，才可能对其适用死刑，即只有对“罪行最严重”的共犯人才能适用死刑。 在适用对象上，死刑只能适用于共同犯罪中的主犯。但即使对于主犯适用死刑，也应坚持区别对待和责任自负原则，避免死刑滥用和死刑转嫁的倾向。对于共同实行犯适用死刑时，应以谦抑性为原则，综合最直接致害行为、参与犯罪的程度、在共同犯罪中的地位、犯意的提起及共犯人的身份等因素综合评价各实行犯刑事责任的轻重；如果各实行犯的罪行相当，则应结合犯罪人的各种主观因素加以认定。对于组织他人犯罪的案件，也不能对组织犯一概适用死刑，应以组织行为的支配力为核心，结合共同犯罪的形式、共同犯罪人的主观内容及共同犯罪的类型等因素综合衡量。对于教唆他人犯罪的案件，死刑的适用应以实行犯为基准。同时，基于教唆对象、教唆方法及教唆双方的关系等因素的影响，也不排除在某些情况下对教唆犯优先适用死刑；在概括性教唆他人犯罪案件有必要适用死刑时，应优先考虑直接实行人即被教唆人；在间接教唆案件中，死刑的适用一般应优先考虑实行犯，但如果间接教唆犯在共同犯罪中起到组织作用的，也可优先考虑对其适用死刑。 在诉讼程序上，首先，对共同犯罪案件中的死刑裁量应区分死刑适格裁断和死刑适用裁断，充分重视各共同犯罪人的个体因素对量刑的影响。其次，应严格证据审查，对行为人之间是否共同犯罪存在疑问时，应坚持有利于被告人的原则；在存在共同犯罪人在逃的情形时，应根据已查明的事实和已到案人的具体行为，慎重适用死刑；在无法查清共同犯罪人各自责任时，基于有利被告原则，对各共犯人都不宜适用死刑立即执行。最后，应确立禁止不利再审制度。 对于共同故意杀人案件裁量死刑时，应树立理性死刑观念，严格死刑适用标准，并注重从轻量刑情节的运用。在雇凶杀人案件中，应以实行行为作为评价基准，结合雇佣犯罪复杂的表现形式来确定其中雇主和受雇人双方的责任，并对死刑的适用进行限制。对于抢劫犯罪，死刑的适用应限于为实施抢劫罪而故意杀人或者在抢劫过程中故意致人死亡或严重损害他人身体健康的情形。在抢劫共同犯罪案件中，对各共犯人的责任评价应以侵害人身的实行行为为中心，并结合其主客观情节加以评价。对于毒品犯罪，死刑的适用应确立“毒品数量＋严重情节”的司法标准。在共同实施毒品犯罪行为的案件中，应结合行为人罪前、罪中及罪后的表现正确认定毒品犯罪的共同犯罪，合理区分毒品共同犯罪的主犯和从犯。对于其中的从犯应当从轻量刑，避免死刑的适用；运输毒品行为在整个毒品犯罪环节中社会危害性相对较小，负责运输毒品的行为人一般恶性较小，应排除死刑的适用；对毒品犯罪集团的首要分子适用死刑时，同样应以达到死刑适用的数量标准为前提，并结合刑法规定的死刑总标准确定死刑的适用。对于黑社会性质组织犯罪案件，既要区别首要分子和一般主犯，又要区别首要分子与首要分子之间作用的差别，并结合各行为人主客观的表现来确定死刑适用的对象。

Compared to individual crime, Joint crime is more harmful to our society, which makes it an important striking object of the ruling class all through the ages. This results in the severe situation of the application of death penalty in joint crime in present China. Therefore, we should differentiate the complicate situations of joint crime, analyze the different effect of all actors in joint crime, and restrict the application of death penalty in joint crime so as to limit and reduce the application of death penalty in our country.The application of death penalty in joint crime is closely related to the punishing principle of joint crime and the death penalty policy at the time. Historically, we can find out that the principle of criminal responsibility of joint crime goes through same responsibility via differentiating responsibility to individual responsibility on the one hand, death penalty has a history from being abused to be restricted and diminish on the other hand, which decides the application of death penalty in joint crime also goes through a course from being abused to be restricted.Under the policy of Strictly Restricting Death Penalty, we should keep to the principles of thriftiness, fairness and differentiation. The condition of death penalty is the basic standard for the judicial application of death penalty, “the crime committed is extremely serious” is the gross standard for death penalty. In joint crime cases, the “crime” refers to the whole joint offense one the one hand and the special criminal behavior of each actor one the other hand. When the “crime” of the actor is extremely heinous regardless of total assessment or individual evaluation, the actor might be sentenced to death penalty. That is to say, death penalty should be applied to the most serious actors in joint crime.As for the applicational object, death penalty can only be applied to the principal in joint crime. However, even for principals we should stick to the principles of differentiation and self-responsibility and avoid the false trend of abusing death penalty and transferring death penalty. When applying death penalty among joint perpetrators, we should take all kinds of subjective and objective factors into consideration, such as the most direct behavior causing the serious result, the degree to participate in the joint crime, the status in the joint crime, the status of the actors and so on. As for the cases of organizing crime, we should concentrate on the domination on the perpetrator by the organizing offender based on the consideration of the factors as the form of joint crime, the subjective content of actors and the kind of the crime committed. As for the cases of abetting others to commit crimes, death penalty should be basically applied to the perpetrator. Meanwhile, abettor can also be convicted death penalty first based on the factors of the object of abetting, the methods adopted to abet and the relationship between abettor and perpetrator. In the cases of indirectly abetting crimes, death penalty should be applied to perpetrator first, however, if the indirect abettor plays an organizing role in joint crime, abettor should be convicted to death first.For the judicial procedure to restrict the application of death penalty, we should take the measures as follows: First of all, the qualification for death penalty and application of death penalty should be decided partly, so as to think much of the individual characteristics of each actor in joint crime. Secondly, evidence should be examined strictly. When this doubt about whether there is a joint crime, the defendant favorable doctrine should be persisted. When some actors of joint crime are still at large, death penalty should be applied seriously based on the fact have being found out and the special behavior of the actors being captured. If each actor’s responsibility can’t be examined clearly in joint crime, according to the defendant favorable doctrine, they all should not be convicted to death penalty with immediate execution. Thirdly, the paper encourages establishing a system of prohibiting adverse retrials. This means that even actors in joint crime were under-punished they should not be retried for a heavier punishment, especially for a capital punishment.For the cases of joint murder crime, when considering the application of death penalty, rational concept about death penalty should be established, the applicable standard of death penalty should be strictly explained and the mitigating circumstances should be emphasized. In employment murder cases, when evaluating the responsibility of the employer and the employee, we should, with the consideration of the complex manifestations of employment crimes, make the perpetrator’s behavior as a metewand so as to restrict the application of death penalty in employment murder cases. For the robbery crime, the application of death penalty should be restricted to the situation that the robber commits murder crime in order to rob or kills the person being robbed or seriously damages the health of the other people during the robbery. In the cases of joint robbery crime, the evaluation of each robber’s responsibility should center on the perpetration to personality and take all kinds of subjective and objective factors in mind meanwhile. For the application of death penalty of drug crime, the paper holds that the amount of drug and the serious circumstances of drug crime together should be established as the judicial standard for death penalty application. In the cases of joint drug crime, judge should differentiate the principal and accessory reasonably, for the latter one, because of his minor offense in joint crime the application of death penalty should be avoided to. The behavior of transporting drug from one place to another place plays a relatively minor role in the whole chain of drug crime, so drug transporter should not be convicted capital punishment. As for the ringleader of the drug criminal group, the application of death penalty should also be decided under the premise of the amount of drug related and stick to the gross standard for death penalty the criminal law stipulated. In the organized crime with Gang nature, it is necessary to distinguish between the ringleader and the other principals and between the ringleaders based on their subjective and objective behavior for the application of death penalty.