Study On Behavior Of Extortion In Using The Property Rights

Using stress way to retrieve their belongings, achieve due creditor’s rights, or other rightsof their property,this kind of behavior have a common in realizing of right of illegal means.Because of means of stress, the behavior is very similar with the crime of blackmail,whichraises a question,this kind of behavior is the exercise of property rights,or a crime? Thispaper is divided into four parts to make this problem:The first part, we make a definition on the behavior of property rights, the act ofexercising property rights mainly have two types, one is the person has the rights to askingothers to return in private law in the situation of their own property possession by others.Another is one has the rights to obtain property or property interest from others. We have fewreseaches in this area, there also has some controversy in the judicial congnizance, mainly theact is a right or crime. The first problems is to grasp of the nature of the behavior, the authorthinks that the behavior is essentially a kind of self-help behavior,becausing of thecharacteristics of this kind consistent with the private relief.The second part, this part is to reseach the handing of this problem of Britain, UnitedStates,Germany and Japan, the purpose is to provide reference for our country’s theory andpractice. Britain and the U.S mainly insists no punishment to the act of exercise of propertyrights. The two countries are as compared to the subjective aspects of human behavior indealing with the problem, at first, as long as the actor exercise the rights with goodwill, weexclude the establishment of the crime, the objective aspect later appeared as criteria forjudging the situation. Germany is not punishment on the behavior in the longer period of time,but to punish in the society when more confusion. Japan on the issue repeatedly, changedmany times, but we can be sure that the two countries pay attention to the objective judgment,and both countries make adjustments according to legal protection scope.The third part, the key point of this part is the qualitative of the act on exercise property.Acorrding the second part, we know the problem of qualitative basis: the behavior is aviolation of the legal interests protected by the corresponding property crime, the actor’ssubjective whether illegal profit, against a criminal policy on crime. Britain and U.S do notexist the legal interest discussing, but it is inseparable in handing of the case and this thought.Germany and Japan’s theory about the benefits is more abundant, the protection of legalinterests determines the range of the crime scope size, so the legal interests discussion in judging the crime is essential. The four countries have some common in criteria, namely onjudging the subjective meaning about the behavior, and according to the standard todistinguish the property right and property crime, subjective malice is a crucial point in acrime. A country’s criminal policy crackdown on crime, will also affect the qualitativebehavior, generally in the society when more chaotic, the state will take a heavier punishmentto combat crime, safeguard the rule.The fourth part, this part is the author’s view on the problem, we make the basissummarized by the third part use of our country’s actual situation, discusses the influence ofhuman interest protection, one’s subjective meaning and criminal policy to the behaviorqualitative. China’s general " ownership" has been unable to adapt to the changing situation,the author thinks that the legal profits of extortion should be " first is the ownership ofproperty and other right, next is the change the status quo(recovery of possession should bestate) through legal procedures ". In addition, the behavior of exercising the property rightsmust be " the purpose of illegal possession "in the subjective aspect may constitute theextortion. According to China’s current "tempering justice with mercy" criminal policy, suchbehavior should not be regarded as being crime. Finally, identifying some behavior inpractice, the main point of this paper is the kindness people exercising property not as aproperty crime in principle, but when the behavior in blackmail beyond the limit, mightconstitute other crimes.