Robbery, snatch a number of issues Crime Research
【Summary】 quasi-robbery structure is actually a preparatory nature of the offenses, and snatch a combination of behavior, but in order to determine the substance of robbery, its behavior should be structured is a
threatening behavior and snatch a combination of behavior, to a considerable sexual the principle of measurement, "Lethal Weapon" theft, fraud, acts of robbery should be punished, but the value of measuring the legislative, quasi-robbery of the provision was not necessary; that
transformed robbery should be the premise of behavior constitutes a crime point of view, inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and does not properly constrained investigative power, the exercise of prosecutorial
power, while depriving the victim or a third person the absolute right to due process, and robbery is not consistent with the composition of elements; accompanying violence and intensity of a larger ... ...
A, robbery and snatch the interrelationship between crime
The crime of robbery and snatch the judicial practice has a relatively high incidence rate of the judiciary in recent years the focus target. As the legislation a high degree of abstraction inherent in the practice of grabbing one correspondence can not be the specific
circumstances of crime, while the relevant legislation is also certain problems do exist, and this scramble for the judiciary correctly distinguish between the boundaries of the crime and robbery, as well as
correct handling of other related the problem more difficult. Therefore, a careful study of the difference between these two kinds of crime, and contacts, not only of theoretical significance, but also has practical value. Based on this understanding, criminal law scholars conducted
extensive and in-depth study.
(A) two of the contact crimes
Analysis of the behavior structure, we find that the crime of plunder and robbery are very closely linked.
1. Quasi-robbery (Note: The author uses this concept. Cinco called
presumption of robbery, Shaw and other scholars, known as China transformed robbery, while the Han Wei, Liu Shude the typical transformed robbery call quasi-robbery. can be seen on the transformation of academic knowledge of offenders had not been reached.). This refers to snatch weapon carrying behavior. Their behavior structure, is actually a preparatory nature of the offenses, and a combination of grabbing behavior. Such a preparatory character, in essence, just a violation, that
violation of security management tools control law. Because of this act there, grabbed the behavior becomes a robbery.
2. Of transformed robbery. This refers to theft, fraud, rob the process, for harboring stolen property, resisting arrest or destruction of
evidence and on the spot the use of violence or threats of violence behavior. Their behavior structure, is actually a first follow-up to vie
for behavior and sexual violence (violent and violent coercion behavior) combination. One of the acts of violence, it is generally a means of
looting behavior, in certain circumstances it may be a kind of the same "take the money" to implement practices are inseparably connected to this behavior.
3. Accompanying acts of violence and intensity of the larger snatch.
For example, when tearing victims to snatch women's earrings ears; snatch when the strength of women Kunbao dragging the victims lying on the ground; Speed to snatch the victim serious injury or death caused to others and so on. As the level of violence associated with acts of
grabbing more obvious, what is the nature of their acts or robbery, snatch, there are different opinions. This argument, in turn, explains the link between the two kinds of crime.
4. Two kinds of crimes are property crimes, or to claim benefits the
same object, like a direct object are also identical: all violations of property rights and interests of citizens; criminal intent are illegal and possession of other people's property - change to all others, all his;
crime targets are all movable property (Note: Some people claim the object of robbery can be a real estate. The reasons are: robbery and assault to possession of property ownership, real estate can be a result of a possession that may have been illegally occupied, for the illegal
possession or control of real estate can be achieved on the spot, so real estate can be a robbery target.); criminal subject is the general subject.
(B) the difference between the two sentences
In general terms, robbery refers to the illegal possession for the purpose of the use of violence, intimidation or other coercive acts of the spot, robbed other people's property; snatch the crime is prepared by people do not openly taking of someone's property acts. The major
difference between the two crimes are: the direct object is different. The object of the crime of robbery is a complex object, both violations of civil property rights, but also violation of personal rights of citizens. The crime of plunder only violations of civil property rights; criminal
subject is different. The main body of the crime of robbery can be a full 14 years of age, under 16 years of age. And snatch the main body of the crime must be at least 16 years old (above). This is Tong said.
The problem is, Tung said, that is, from concept to constitute a crime - in essence, from theory to theory of inference. This use of the logical deductive reasoning method itself is not wrong, but the premise of the inductive method of reasoning produced inherently difficult to
exhaustive child defects, therefore, scholars have questioned the idea of the crime of plunder, for robbery in the "other methods" a dissenting opinion.
Some scholars believe that "people do not prepare by" should not be grabbing the behavior of the crime or that the necessary elements, because a large number of snatch occurred in the victim "when well prepared," such as the briefcase tightly in her arms, the satchel placed on the chest, even with security guards and so on. In this case, the perpetrator is
actually "prepared by people" and to implement grab.  The author further study found that some acts of plunder carried out neither in public nor in the presence of the victim's face (the "face") to conduct, choosing instead to secluded empty occasion. Is sometimes carried out face to face, sometimes prepared by when people do not, therefore, on the one hand, "take people off guard," should not be grabbing the necessary elements of the crime; the other hand, "openly" does not necessarily grab
the behavioral characteristics of the crime of , only the mob ransacked the crime of plunder behavior is a "flagrant" in the. Because in the Tong said, the "open" is a double meaning, one that publicly, that is with numerous other public place; 2 refers to the person to.  (Note:
Professor Wang Zuofu edited the book, the author Zhijun view is that: In addition to the spot, the overt meaning is "the victim can be immediately found" and that the latter is the meaning of the behavior characteristics
of the crime of plunder. I disagree , as robbery, theft there, "the victim can be immediately found" situation.) in the school Miss Wu Qu research monograph in flagrante delicto, "openly" means a flagrant, cynical and openly being to  "Open being to ", it can be assumed that its
performance in public or face to face, rather than clandestine. However, Ms. Qu believed that such a flagrant crime, the crime of plunder, "not only by its wanton, reckless implementation of the subjective characteristics of criminal acts, there should be its public face in public is a crime or not a particular people, the majority of crime objectivity sign.  (P21) explained that from this point of view, she thought the "blatant" to mainly refer to conduct in public. However, the
phenomenon of crime from the snatch incidence practical point of view, whether it is carried out in public, when in, or carried out in the face when people may be prepared by or prepared by people do not; the other hand, people have prepared by or prepared by people do not rob, we also
may not be in person or in public. In other words, grab the crime
situation is very complex, can have a variety of permutations and combinations: 1. in public and by people do not prepare; 2. in public and prepared by people; 3. publicly, and face to face and take the people do not prepare; 4. publicly, and face to face and by people prepared; 5 . face to face and by people do not prepare; 6. face to face and by people prepared; 7. neither in public nor in person, but by people prepared
(behind the start with); 8. neither in public nor in person, but by people do not prepare (behind the start with). This indicates that there was "not prepared by people" and "blatant" restrictions, grabbed the crime, this law can not be covered by the provisions of the above cases, Tung said something about the definition of the offense shall be guilty of grabbing a "sub-items of undistributed "logic error. Conversely, the logic is not being thorough, it means" take the people do not prepare "and" blatant
"unreasonable restrictions. Therefore, I argued that the concept of sin in the snatch, both should be canceled," people do not take Preparation of "restrictions, it should be removed" flagrant "restrictions. In fact, Article 267 of the Penal Code does not have these limitations, Tung said that in the definition, in essence, constitutes a restriction on the interpretation of the law, but such restrictions would not be appropriate to land to constitute a crime under the law has been to bring the
defendant not guilty of the explanations and access to declared guilty pleasure.
So, how should the definition of snatch wrong? In my opinion, grabbing behavior is different from robbery, theft and fraud lies in two things: First, nature of the act is "to win." "Seizing" behavior in
comparison with the theft, with a certain brutal properties; with the looting than the barbaric nature of such a weak, non-mandatory. Second,
the behavior of "sudden", that in general the victim had a chance to
respond to snatch the implementation of actions had been completed. Of course, the only "surprise" not enough to distinguish between representation grabbing and looting, but also not enough to distinguish between snatch and theft, because sometimes the victims of robbery or
theft is too late to response to acts of robbery or theft had been was completed. Broadly speaking, in all have a "sudden" circumstances, the snatch, the distinction between looting is to conduct the "sudden" and "mandatory" combination. Sudden force to seize, rather than acquire,
belonging to snatch; sudden made mandatory, rather than seize belong to robbery. This is included for the distinction between the nature of sexual violence is very important. The snatch theft distinction lies in surprise
win. A sudden seizure, belonging to snatch; secret or to allow victims to obtain a sudden loss of property belonging to theft. Strictly speaking, their "sudden" can be quite different. Robbery, snatch act of "sudden" is a compulsory act, and to seize the properties of the act itself, while the theft of "sudden" is not the act itself of the property, but their mere feelings of victims; from the victim's reaction, the snatch sudden behavior will lead to the victim immediately, "surprise"; while the theft
of the act itself does not have a sudden, the victim felt the sudden is surprised to discover that someone is missing after the theft or property has been away from the perpetrator of the theft of behavior or long or short time interval. Therefore, grab the concept of sin can be stated as
follows: for the purpose of illegal possession of a sudden taking of
someone's larger (or more) the amount of property act.
Is generally believed that, according to established standard "equivalence" principle, robbery in the "other methods" should be the
means of violence, coercion than with violence, coercion means quite enough to make the victim afraid or unable to resist the order to hand over their valuables or to allow the perpetrator took property approach.
This is a very good reason. However, "advised drunk and take property," whether the equivalence principle, it was a dissenting opinion, saying that "to persuade drunk and take property," and "drunk and take property," different. In the "Drunk and advised to take property," the case, although
the perpetrator has to be advising people to (a victim) intentional drunkenness, but the victims themselves not only failed to feelings of personal rights have been violated, and no real physical assaults and physical violence may - just persuaded to accept a large number of
drinking only on their knowledge of possible state of intoxication and holders of laissez-faire attitude (which is basically different from the drug anesthesia), the perpetrator but the victim is trapped in a state of
intoxication under the premise of the implementation of the secret theft of property of victims of acts; in the "drunk and taking money" cases, not only the perpetrator intentionally has drunk the victims, but victims are reluctant to the case of drunk forced drunk, "the drunk "has a" violent "significance. Therefore, "urged drunk and get wealth," the attribution of acts of theft by secret method is more appropriate.  this point of view the background, of course, there is not enough from a theoretical point of
view of the Criminal Code of irregularities - whether it should be "other
means" as a means of robbery is indeed debatable, but application of criminal law perspective, this kinds of point of view in itself only gives people wondering: What we really should stand point of view, the position analysis of crime pose? in certain crimes, of course, need to consider the feelings of victims, such as the rape victim in violation of the will, but the composition of all crimes are The perpetrator must be a subjective
analysis of sins, which is consistent with the principles of objective and subjective basic requirements. In these cases, the perpetrator why "urge somebody to drink", it was decided to take the financial behavior of their character. Based on an active atmosphere, such as goodwill, by the victim drunk and just take money, of course, are theft; take people money based on ill-will "urge somebody to drink" as the implementation of the act to take financial means to take the victim drunk and just take money, of
course is a robbery. Without distinction, to talk about "urge somebody to drink" and "Guan Jiu" distinction, it is inevitable there are word games is suspect. In fact, in everyday life, people said, "I put so and so drunk that" time is, generally refers to urge somebody to drink too much and lead to the drunk, never say, "I forced him drunk."
Distinction between robbery and snatch the crime of talking, which is not enough. Logically, things and things connected between the means are
different, precisely because there is contact only the necessary distinction between things, but also have different possibilities. Quasi-
crime of Robbery and snatch a difference? This seems to be academic not pay attention. If we firmly believe that the scientific nature of
materialist dialectics, this issue is bound to draw firm conclusions. So, what difference do they have? What difference? In my opinion, the key difference lies in correctly identified the two "quasi-robbery." Some
people think that, according to the principle of legality, since the provisions of the Penal Code has made it clear "to carry lethal weapons snatch, in accordance with the provisions of article 263 of this Law be convicted and punished," then, as long as the perpetrator was carrying a
weapon when in the snatch, they should be recognized as a robbery.  This recognition is manifestly contrary to the spirit of the principles of objective and subjective consensus is a mechanical understanding of the principles of legality. Therefore, criticized by many scholars.  It now appears that critics say has become a pass, but the pass that has not been adopted by the judiciary. November 17, 2000, "Supreme People's Court on the hearing of specific cases of robbery and a number of issues of
interpretation of application of the law" (France Release  No. 18) Article 6 are still states: "to carry lethal weapons to snatch" refers to the behavior of people carry firearms, explosives, controlled knives and other countries ban to snatch the instruments carried by individuals behavior. Even the expansion of this provision be interpreted as "In order to implement a solid and carry equipment to snatch other's behavior." Of course, I do not think that this interpretation is the judicial
interpretation of the scientific and proper use. In the "carry firearms, explosives, controlled knives and other countries ban to snatch the instruments carried by individuals," the case, this behavior is structured to include two situations: a preparatory character of the offense (in
essence, is the Chief offense) and snatch The combination of behavior; threatening behavior and to snatch a combination of behavior. The previous structure, the "preparatory" behavior goal-directed action is unknown, may
be in self-defense may be to produce, life or work, it may be illegal and criminal for the ultimate nature of the act, it should be implemented by the actual behavior of the implementation of the decision. Since the practical implementation of the perpetrator is grabbing act, then it
should be recognized as a scramble. Some scholars have pointed out: In this case, if neither the perpetrator intends to snatch the use of lethal weapons carried by, victims often do not know the perpetrator to carry a weapon, then from the objective and subjective aspects, actors carry lethal weapons in not to mention the fact that would pose a threat to the safety of others, which not only against property with the robbery against the person has not exactly match the composition of features, which should
not be recognized as a robbery.  This explanation is undoubtedly justified. The latter structure, the "Lethal Weapon" behavior, it should be understood as a negative use of weapon behavior, the threat of such acts have a certain color, can constitute a psychological resistance to the inhibition of victims, in essence, belong to other coercive means, so it kinds of structure, behavior should be recognized as a robbery. In the "In order to implement crime to carry other equipment to grab," the case,
"In order to commit the crime" itself ambiguity. In order to carry lethal weapons to hurt Moubing A passing point B when you grab a certain small way, but also "In order to implement the crime to carry lethal weapons to grab," can be identified as robbery? Obviously not. Contact before and after the meaning of this sentence understanding, I believe that we have talked about "For crime" refers to grab in order to commit crime and robbery, and his behavior structure is: 1. Snatch snatch the
implementation of preparatory acts and acts of combination. Finds that this case acts as a scramble crime, it should be uncontroversial. 2. Robbery, snatch the implementation of preparatory acts and acts of combination. In this case, although the acts are actually carried out
preparatory acts of looting, but the behavior of the development process, the perpetrator is in fact dominated by Robbery deliberately introduced to snatch acts, acts of nature has changed, the changed the unity of subjective and objective elements determines the nature of his actions should be determined to snatch the crime. 3. Preparatory acts and threats, robbery and snatch the implementation of sexual behavior combination. That the perpetrator to carry lethal weapons is ready to decide whether to use
the scene of lethal weapons is an obvious fact, the implementation of the threatening behavior, such as to indicate their intention to victims with a weapon, or intend to allow victims to find themselves with a weapon, and its essence in order to suppress the resistance of the victims, the nature of other coercive means, they should be recognized as robbery. To sum up, only the latter behavior is consistent with the structure of the composition of characteristics of robbery. In accordance with the judicial
interpretation of the literal meaning of the above-mentioned three kinds
of structure, behavior, behavior did not show the weapon carried constitute robbery, and even some academics claim to carry lethal weapons in the above two kinds of situations, "the perpetrator must be a In the snatch did not show that the use of the equipment they carry in order to set up a "robbery."  This may be the composition of features from the robbery and a greater distance, it is probably the correct interpretation
of the judicial interpretation, but the judicial interpretation of the rationality of its own worth into question. After all, not to rob or robbery, while carrying so-called "weapon", and that is just an objective fact, by virtue of the fact that behavior found guilty of robbery, and we criticize the "objective imputation "I'm afraid that only a zero distance.
Scholars analyze the requirements, almost all of the weapon to the connotation and extension of an analysis of approaches, from the research
methods speaking, it is no problem. The problem is, some academics have not been able to accurately grasp the weapon and the production and living the dialectical relationship between the utensils, they could not accurately define the meaning weapon or no definition. For example, it was considered lethal weapons of mass destruction is large, be able to engender fear and psychological instruments, such as firearms, explosives, controlled knives, knives, fruit knives, etc.;  Some people think that:
"The so-called lethal weapons are often to see there are daggers, folding knives, such as Tri-scraper. " a small number of scholars, rightly pointed out: weapon, can only refer to firearms, ammunition, explosives, knives and so obviously can be used to control anti-human devices, and
normally uses is not personal, but the perpetrator clearly intended to be used as a snatch backed objects, such as kitchen knives, beer bottles, mugs, pens, etc. and even a small fruit knife.  should be sure that
the extension is a very wide range of lethal weapons, and they and the people's production and life and even a closely related study, we can not and should not see these things appear in a scene of the crime or the suspect who, they say they are weapon. As Professor Wang Zuofu pointed
out: "regardless of any appliance or tool, and only used in the attack,
the weapon can be called. In other words, regardless of any appliance or tool, as long as was used in the attack, assault, murder has become lethal weapons. " In discussing the circumstances under which to carry lethal weapons in order to snatch the behavior identified as robbery, individual scholars pointed out that the inappropriate nature of this provision, advocated for the abolition of the.  repeal say the main reasons are:
crime and robbery to snatch the fundamental difference between the means different, not in terms of difference. Carry weapon retention, weapon as long as the perpetrator did not use violence, coercion and other compulsory physical behavior, in general scramble with no essential difference; Penal Code section 263 pairs of robbery provision already contains the "Lethal Weapon grab" the contents of the ;  This provision runs counter to the requirements of the theory posed by crime is
inconsistent with the principle of unity of subjective and objective, with the shadow system, by analogy, using the core concepts such as "carrying," "weapon" is vague, with theft, fraud behavior into a robbery is not a prerequisite for a unified - as to carry lethal weapons can be transformed into acts of grab robbery, carrying lethal weapons to conduct fraud, theft into a robbery, why they can not be wrong?  The author believes that it is reasonable to repeal the . However, we can not bring the legislation
completely inappropriate hopes of legislative changes that can be remedied by judicial interpretation and complete, and should do its utmost to explain way. Because of the high cost of the legislation, and it is limited. I believe that original aim for the prospective identification of robbery, should be based on the unity of subjective and objective principles, firmly grasp the essence of robbery, that is, the use of whatever means, must be in order to allow victims not to resist or can not
resist. If the behavior of people who do not carry lethal weapons known to the victim or the perpetrator is not the intent to pressure him to carry a weapon of equipment or tools are not able to "carry lethal weapons," grab the behavior identified as robbery.
In the transformed robbery, the crime of robbery and snatch the difference between robbery and snatch with the quasi-difference between
crimes have one thing in common, that is, in both cases, the main body of the crime of plunder is a full 16 years of age, while the is the main body
is full of robbery and 14 years of age. In addition, there is one thing in common: the crime of plunder constituted the amount of restrictions, while the quasi-robbery Ye Hao, transformed robbery or whatever, not the amount
of the request unless "the circumstances are obviously minor, there is little risk," should be handled as a crime.
For the accompanying acts of violence and intensity of the larger snatch, the aforementioned no clear judicial interpretation. But for "the
use of motor vehicles traveling to snatch the" situation, which explain the requirements "in order to grab the crime be punished severely." I think this is worth further study, not across the board. It should be anticipated if the perpetrator's own powerful drag and drop behavior of
victims of minor injuries caused by the above results, but neglect predictable, causing minor injuries to snatch the results of acts of crime should be recognized as a scramble; on injuries caused by acts of these
results, it should be recognized number of crimes, results Implicated Offense Principle Imaginative Joinder of Offenses or treatment (Note: the academic principles for the application of which remains controversial. I believe that the results implicated that with the Imaginative Joinder of
Offenses and the involvement of disaster has to distinguish between, it should only claim Implicated Offense methods involved a different form.). Imaginative Joinder of Offenses, if applicable principles according to which the felony offense shall be punished severely that snatch; if applicable Implicated Offense principle, according to which the felony offense that is punishable snatch. Reposted elsewhere in the paper for free download http://
Two, violence, the meaning of Analysis
As the crime of robbery and snatch linked to scramble into the crime of robbery of the bridge, "violence" has a prominent role, naturally into the robbery of all research scholars horizons. For the meaning of violence, scholars have different understanding.
Some scholars based on the perspective of the violent crimes, advocates of violence is divided into three layers: (a) generalized violence. The illegality of all types of tangible physical force (including the threat of use of violence). The target can be people, it can be complex; I can for the victims but also to the presence of others. Violent content, which may include beatings from the general, a slight injury to the most serious intentional murder, wounding with intent. Such
violence in the broadest sense, not in order to achieve the direct inhibition of victims to determine the degree of resistance standards. (B) the narrow sense of violence. Refers to visible physical force against the person imposing, that does not include the implementation of physical force against objects; the level of violence does not require certain degree of damage to the physical results, but should have relatively strong against the person, mandatory and does not rule out the cause
injury, the possibility of death. (C) the most narrow sense of violence. The same refers to the physical person to exert physical force, does not include the implementation of the objects. However, the level of violence is stronger than the narrow sense of violence, usually has enough to
inhibit the extent of the victim resisted, but in fact whether the victim's resistance to suppression does not affect the crime be established. The scholar also believes that the violence in robbery is defined as the implementation for the victims of physical attack or
coercion, is intended to exclude or suppress the resistance of the victim in order to immediately capture (or forced to surrender his) property. The lower limit of the level of violence do not require to endanger human
health, life or the extent of forcing the victim can not resist. Because the perpetrator of violence intended to exclude the victim's resistance ability and courage, when the violence for this purpose and the property owner's body for the implementation of this crime should be identified as the means of violence. The identified criteria is not whether to be able to cause bodily harm or life-threatening, but rather whether it can
inhibit the real potential victims and protect property. The victims to
protect their property as long as the denial of the real potential, it should be considered to belong to this crime of violence. The violence, the ceiling should not include deliberate means of murder.  Another scholar maintained that violence has the following three characteristics:
(a) Legal Characteristics - violence in the legal sense of criminal law
refers to provisions of criminal law expressly provided for a criminal means; (b) behavior - violence, refers to the infringement of personal and property rights acts of violence; (3) subjective characteristics - the
perpetrator of violence is the intentional acts of the time, and has a clear purpose.  In my opinion, as a core concept of violent crime, violent crime in a different term should be consistent, should not differ
because of the offense, or of legality will be wavering. Violence the primary meaning is mandatory power; followed by the physical nature of coercive power, rather than chemical destructive (Note: The use of chemical substances damage the results of the human body is still on the physical nature of the results, so this injury is still a physical force mandatory. ) once again, this coercive power has produced enough to make a general fear of the victim and thus did not dare to resist the
psychological or enough to make the general role of the victim can not resist. If these points does not lead to objections, then violence should refer to a direct role in the human body or object, and sufficient to suppress the victim's physical resistance to the coercive power. The
question is, how to determine "enough to suppress?" In my opinion, based solely on the victim's feelings, or completely divorced from the victim's feelings and behavior of people based solely on the knowledge of the establishment of standards, are not reasonable. Reasonable standards, should be more comprehensive consideration of acts of violence have been imposed by both the imposition and understanding of the behavior of the dynamic relationship to the perpetrator the purpose of implementing this
mandatory basis, combined with the general feelings of the victims to judge. As for the "general victim" actually refers to the general people are still the same "general rational man", it seems worthy of further study. The reason why I consider the behavior of the dynamic relationship between advocates is based on real needs: in the snatch with the outcome of cases of violence, such as the use of a moving motor vehicle who seize the car or riding a bike body bags, because both sides are in the course
of the campaign , the inertia force can easily lead to a fall victim falls even cause serious injury or death consequences for the victim. Act faster to drive a vehicle, wounding the greater the force, covers the "use of a moving vehicle," this means out of the "violence", the judge or to the contrary, I am afraid are unconvincing. The author believes that this included sexual violence and the typical robbery of violence does have a few differences: it and take fiscal actions combined into a whole; it is
the property of the object directly, rather than personal; behavior of persons This particular violence that may harm the results are not necessarily intentional. If the perpetrator knew of this dangerous means sufficient to cause injury or even the results of falling victim still in place, the objective was also caused such an outcome, to identify robbery of a more reasonable; if the perpetrator should be foreseeable but not foreseen in the case of causing of such an outcome, to identify the crime
for grabbing more reasonable. In addition, the reason why I advocate a general reaction of the victim as a basis for the establishment of