Type Of Pickpocketing Theft Of Property

In April 2013,judicial interpretation of theft criminal cases was promulgated by Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate.By article three,theft in the public places or on public transportation should be deemed to be pickpocketing.It is not clear that what is the "carry-on" property.The standard of judgment is still uncertain as well as weather the property is in public place or not.There are four parts in this dissertation:The first part is about the property status of pickpocketing theft in the judicial identification and academic dispute.There is no uniform standards of judgment in courts,and the courts tends to adopt the standard of melee and close-fitting.There are also differences in the "carry-on" sexual understanding between the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate.The Supreme People's Procuratorat tends to melee,while the Supreme People's Court tends to close-fitting.The theoretical circle is also controversial about the understanding of "carrying on",there are three kinds of points:"Had said""Melee said""Close-fitting said".The second part is the defects of Had said and Melee said.The Had said and Melee said in theory cannot be self-consistent,why does the property from the victim distant normal body stealing only reaches a certain amount of regulation,while property close to the body from the victim pickpocketing type crime to property regardless of the amount of protection.Close possession and relaxation have no distinction in criminal law,nor provide clear criteria for division.By the standard of Melee said and Had said,it will appear problem in the concrete practice operation.That is,how far the distance is Melee,which lacks specific standards.After the judicial interpretation issued,if adopting Had said and Melee said,as pickpocketing type of theft is regardless of the amount of punishment,this will result in excessive punishment,which is not conducive to the criminal policy of leniency.Lack of clear guidance on the boundary and exceptional cases,if the property is large,the Had and Melee standard will impact the people's habitual understanding.The third part elaborates that the "public places" and "public transportation" is not necessary in property of pickpocketing.Because "public places" and "public transport"can hardly be the basis for improving lawlessness.In practice,many of the perpetrators of the theft are secretly stolen,and the victim and others are not aware of it,which makes nobody feeling unsafe and reducing social security.Pick-pocketing could be found and influence public security,which does not form the basis for enhance the connotation of pickpocketing lawlessness.It is not limited in "public transport" or "public place" in judicial interpretation.The fourth part advocates the judging standard of Melee said.Melee said protects the victim's personal taboo,which is consistent with the legal system and constitution.Constitution stipulates that the dignity of citizens is inviolable.The criminal law stipulates the crime of Crime of unlawful search of,which consistent with the interpretation of the criminal law system.Protection object to Crime of unlawful search of,it is other people's body and residential,which embodies the protection of privacy and dignity.In physical privacy protector,the criminal law system and legal aspect is same in Close-fitting said.Close-fitting said provides a standard for the definition of property,providing a clear criterion of factual judgment and the modesty of criminal law.