On Some Issues Of Transformed Robbery

Tranformed robbery has always been considered as a hot theoretical and practical issue of which premise conditions ,subjective conditions as well as objective conditions are the focuses. This article tries to discuss those problems on the legal base of the tranformed robbery through analysing the traditional and foreign legislation, comparing transformed robbery with the essential robbery on the constitution. It is concluded that although transformed robbery has its particularity, it still has much in common with the essential one. Firstly, double offenses: the personal rights and private or public properties. Secondly, intentional illegal possession. Thirdly, violence or threatening with violence. Thus the judging standard should strictly be refered to that of essential robbery. So amount limitation shouldn't be taken into account in the premise conditions. But the minor crime of theft should be precluded. What's more, the criminal who has given up the intention to illeagally possess the properties, in attempted and Suspended crime and crime in preparation should not be brought into the scope of premise conditions. Neither should the spcial crime of theft. While other crimes that conform with the constitution of theft or so should be selected into the premise conditions. The objective aspect of "on the spot" ought to be judged in connection with both time and space. On the premise of recognizing that it's the place where the crime of theft happened ,allow the reasonable and necessary expansion. As for the purpuse of crime, the standard should be that whether it is enough to prevent the victim from counterattch, instead of the substantial injury of the victim. In order to avoid deviation from the essential robbery and assure the legitimacy of penalty, when judging the subjective condition, beside the illegal purpose of "harboring the stolen goods, resisting arrest , destroying criminal evidence", the illegal possession should also be taken into account.