Judicial Recognition Of Theft For Pickpocketing

2011"criminal law amendment (eight)" on the issues of the criminal law revised,has had the enormous repercussions on society, among them, the more influence tothe judicial practice is stealing."Criminal law amendment (eight)" on the theft ofcorrection, compared with the previous theft, the main change is the new joined aburglary, larceny theft crime with lethal weapons, pickpocketing, three new types oftheft, such crimes as stealing public or private property, large amount of, or theft, aburglary, theft crime with lethal weapons, pickpocketing, shall be sentenced tofixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or publicsurveillance, and concurrently or independently be sentenced to a fine " Since theimplement of new larceny, judicial practice about the judicial cognizance of thenew-type theft pickpocketing generated controversy, for example, the concept ofpick-pocketing, pickpocketing theft and other types of cross relationship,pickpocketing with problems, and so on. This article mainly research type pickpockettheft in the judicial cognizance of related problems. First of all, the author of apeople’s procuratorate prosecuted cases in recent years the nature of the case and datastatistics, reflecting the pickpockets into sin since the applicable law of the status quo,from a problem of pick-pocketing, pick-pocketing with other type theft problem ofcross plot and pickpocketing theft the execution of the cross (cross "execution" isrefers to in the administrative law of the law on public security administrationpunishments and pick-pocketing have provisions in criminal law in the judicialcognizance appeared on the cross) problems, type pickpocket theft crime plot andpickpocketing theft problem with five aspects summarizes the pickpockets type theftin the judicial cognizance of the dispute. Secondly, from the angle of the legislativereason explore pickpocketing type theft in judicial cognizance on the causes ofdispute, new larceny legislation qualitative, not quantitative model with generallarceny legislation qualitative and quantitative model is very different in the judicialpractice, traditional larceny legislation of qualitative and quantitative models with qualitative and sentencing as a condition of cognizance of crime, the type andpickpocketing theft of legislative qualitative and quantitative model not onlyqualitative as calculation conditions that crime, how to make the two legislativemodel under our existing legislation unified applicable became a difficult problem.Again, from pickpocket theft crime constitution of the study of the formation ofpick-pocketing characteristics, mainly from the pickpockets type from the objectiveaspect of theft, pick-pocketing is different from the general theft mostly because thepickpocket theft behavior, behavior object, as well as places for behavior is differentfrom general theft. Finally, the type of pickpocketing theft in judicial identification ofhow to solve, from pickpockets theft and theft of how to solve, the guidance ofgeneral type of pickpocketing theft justice, public security management sanctions amethod how to connect and apply to criminal law, the supreme people’s procuratoratecourt opinions regarding cautious arrest and prosecution of pickpocketing type theftjudicial cognizance of the widely used and pickpocketing theft with problems of howto identified five aspects. As the main line, based on justice aims to solve the judicialpractice type pickpocket theft judicial cognizance of the dispute, effectivelydistinguish crime and is not a crime, this crime and those crimes, theft of differenttypes of theft, make in the pickpockets type theft of justice practice in simple, clear,comply with the doctrine of a legally prescribed punishment, conform to thelawmakers make pickpocketing independent into sin.