The Study On The Standards Of "on The Spot" Of Transformed Robbery

The Article269of China’s Criminal Law rulesis generally called as "transformed robbery"by the Scholars in mainland. Due to the highly inherent abstractness of legislation, it is impossible to correspond to each specific practical situation. Meanwhile judicial bodies have different interpretations of provisions. Therefore, there are relatively large disputes on the standards of transformed robbery, especially on the identification standards of "on the spot", among the criminal law scholars and the legal practice community.The purpose of this study is to clarify the "on the spof"issue and improve the identification of transformed robbery in our country. Standing on the shoulders of academics and practitioners, a comprehensive and clear integration will be carried out through sorting results of previous studies and summarizing the existing problems.In this process, different approaches like literature research, historical investigation, case analysis, comparative analysis and other research methods, will be employed to analyze and discuss the differences on the standards of "spot" identification. Through thesummary of scholars’theories and relevant regulations from both domestic and abroad, as well as tracing the history of terms over transformed robbery, it’s clear shown that the problem on the "spot"identification is attributed to two factors, i.e. being lack of legislation explanation and the consequent confusion in judicial practice. Correspondingly, measures should be taken on these two aspects to solve this issue. First of all, on the legislation part the system of judicial explanation should be well established. Secondly, as for the judicial practice, it should be stressed that as the key factor of transformed robbery with both time and spatial features,"on the spot"should be the link between the prerequisite actions like theft, fraud, and forcible seizure and the follow-up actions like violence and threats. Hence, when defining whether it is "on the spot" in judicial practice, three factors--"continuity in space and time","association of successive behaviors", and "persistence of chasing"--should be fully taken into consideration. By analyzing the identification factors of "on the spot", this paper clearly shows the existing defects in the regulations about "on the spot", and hopefully the solutions proposed here could contribute to a better unity and clearance in future legislation and judicial practice.