Research On Repeated Acts As Conviction Standard In Chinese Criminal Law

As more and more repeated acts have been stipulated in criminal law provisions, scholars pay more attention on this phenomenon. A series of theoretical and practical problems need to be resolved. According to specific provisions, repeated acts can be classified into various categories. So there are various solutions. Based on the difference of effect, repeated acts can be classified into three types. Study on Repeated acts as conviction standard in Chinese Criminal Law can give us some typical and particular suggestion. Because of the provision’s ambiguity, there are many obstacles in the judicial application. In order to improve the legislation of repeated acts, clear the legislation omissions, and make the substantial interpretation of criminal law, restrict the expansion of the provision of repeated acts.Apart from the introduction, this paper has six parts, totally forty thousand words.First of all, the introduction of repeated acts. It is a gradually increasing legislative phenomenon in our criminal law. Number of illegal behavior can belong to quantity factors in Chinese Criminal Law. At last, based on the difference of the effect, leading to the object of this paper, repeated acts which as conviction standard.Secondly, the overview of repeated acts as conviction standard. This part introduces some scholars regard repeated acts as a new form of crime pattern. Comparing this new concept with repeated acts, repeated acts involve more than the new form. This part also summarizes all the provisions related to repeated acts in Criminal Code, legislative interpretation, judicial interpretation, and prosecution criterion. Then dividing repeated acts into three types, includes “direct quantitative”, “repeat quantitative”, “punitive condition”. Perspective from constituent elements of crime, number of behavior can be part of quantitative factors in the Criminal Law.Thirdly, evaluation on the rationality of the repeated acts as conviction standard. This part analyzes on the rationality of the repeated acts as conviction standard. Our criminal legislation theory emphasizes combining qualitative and quantitative factors. Repeated acts carry considerations about personal danger and delimit the scope of crime, definitize conviction plots. Considering these background, it is reasonable that legalize repeated acts as conviction standard. Although there are some queries on repeated acts, these doubts can be dispelled by persisting ideals of protection of human rights, and restricting addition of provisions, improving existing rules.The fourth part, controversial stipulations of repeated acts as conviction standard. This part teases legislative questions, including stipulation’s expansion in authoritative, expansion in accusation related to repeated acts, and the unclearness of current provisions.The fifth part, controversial issues of repeated acts as conviction standard in judicial practice. This part summarize issues which are confusable when applying repeated acts provisions. Mostly, there are four questions. Firstly, can “one act” of repeated acts be “unaccomplished state of a crime ” ? And it is not explicit whether “repeated acts as conviction standard” has unfinished form or not. Secondly, how to understand the question that the limitation of prosecution of repeated acts? Thirdly, how to identify “repeated acts as conviction standard” when it has been stipulated in the provision of selective accusation? Fourthly, how to identify voluntary surrender? Answers for these questions are various. Only improve the legislation can give the final answer.The sixth part, suggestion for improving the “repeated acts”. Firstly, restrict the expansion of “repeated acts as conviction standard”. Secondly, standardize the reserved provisions. Thirdly, in conviction phase, strictly grasp the conviction standard by substantial explanation. When actor’s repeated acts have been judged, but this “criminal act” has only a little harmfulness, justice may apply the proviso to judge the act is not a crime. In sentencing phase, judge would rule in favor of the suspect more. Behavioral factors should be taken into account as circumstances of sentencing.