Study On The Stopping Forms Of Quasi-robbery Crime

On the one hand, the current studies on the quasi-robbery confinedto the traditional framework for thinking of transforming crime, whichled to the problem of studying hard to have a substantive breakthrough.Through the analysis of this article can find that part of the reasonis just the positioning quasi-robbery as transforming crime. The otherhand, to examine the essential attribute of quasi-robbery, we can dividedquasi-robbery into two categories, which will help to avoid analysis ofthe problem of cross blend. Of this study is based on the above two andcombine with the theory of stopping forms, then come to the standardsfor determining the stopping forms of quasi-robbery.Specifically, the structure of the paper is divided into fourchapters:The aim of the first chapter of the study is to strip Section269of the Criminal Law of1997(hereinafter referred to as “Section269”)out the category of transforming crime, and establish the concept of“quasi-robbery crime”, and thus lay the foundation for the below. Thisis the starting point of this study. China’s theory of transforming crimecame from Section153of the Criminal Law of1979(hereinafter referredto as “Section153”) that the Section269of the Criminal Law of1997, but with the development of theory of transforming crime, which hasproduced a variety of contradictions between with Section269, including:(1)The first act of Section269includes violations, while the first actof transforming crime is still controversial, but the general view isthat it includes only criminal behavior;(2)The transformation processof transforming crime whether contains stopping form and with what kindsof stopping form, this problem due to the specific transforming crimeand should be noted that there is no similarity between the Section269and the above specific transforming crimes;(3)Stopping forms of thetransforming crime and it’s identified standards are also due to thespecific transforming crime, and there is no similarity between theSection269and the above specific transforming crimes. As a result,compared with the other transforming crimes, Section269has itsuniqueness, classifying it as transforming crime is unvalued and hindersthe development of the theory of itself and even the transformingcrime.We need to abandon the traditional concept which is “transformedrobbery”. The concept of “robbery after the event” is irrationalityif we analyze it from the perspective of the semantics of logic.“Quasi-Robbery”, which is the concept is fit most with Section269andembodies the essential characteristics of the legal fiction of Section269.The second chapter summarized and groomed the theoretical argumentsand the status of judicial practice of uncoordinated. The reason oftheoretical disputes and uncoordinated judicature is deep-seated lackof research on the stopping forms of quasi-robbery, this is also the valueof the try of this article.The third chapter attempts to put forward the systemic standard ofdivision of the quasi-robbery. The concrete is divided into twocategories: a class is that some person implement violence or threat of violence who is in the possession of the property in order to concealbooty, resist arrest or destroy criminal evidence; other class is thatsome person implement violence or threat of violence who isn’t in thepossession of the property in order to resist arrest or destroy criminalevidence. The base of the division is that the two types of behavior isdifferent in the quality of crime, and such a division is also able tofind the experience support from the legislation of advancedextra-territorial legislation cases and the traditional laws of theChinese Legal System. In addition, we need to understand the meaning of“possession” from the subjective and objective side, and to notunderstand the person whether he possesses the property as the StatusCrime.On the basis of the above three chapters, chapter4put forward thestandards for determining the stopping forms of quasi-robbery. Asfollows:(1) Quasi-robbery has Preparatory Form. The standard is thatin the implementation process of the first act or after the stopping form,the person prepares tools or manufactures conditions in the next, andfails to proceed for the reason which can’t due to the person. Thebeginning is referred to implementation of violence or threat of violence.I don’t agree that the preparatory form is necessary to be punished aspreparatory form of quasi-robbery crime, and the recognition of thissituation in the judicial practice is difficult. Therefore, only thefirst act needs to be convicted and sentenced.(2)Quasi-robbery haspausing form, which can exist in the preparatory stage of crime, theimplementation stage of crime and criminal behavior of theimplementation of the completion of the crime results not yet occurred.The point of judgment is after the implementation process of the firstact or after the stopping form, the person on the spot produces theobjective of concealing booty, resisting arrest or destroying evidence. And the punishment of the pausing form after the quasi-robbery crimewhose first act has stopping form should be an exception.(3)The abortiveform of quasi-robbery exists in the following two situations. First, theperpetrator who is in possession of the property implements the violenceor threat of violence, the perpetrator ultimately don’t obtain propertywhich can’t due to the person and violence does not cause harm resultin the victim sustained which is more serious than minor injuries, itshould be identified as accomplished form if he obtains property orcauses the victim injury results which is more serious than minorinjuries; Second, the perpetrator without occupying the propertyimplements violence or threat of violence, and the person implementviolence or threat of violence in order to avoid arrest or destroyevidence, it should be identified as abortive form if there isn’t otherelements such as waiver of the implementation of violence or threat ofviolence.