Empirical Investigation On The Application Of Household Robbery Restrictions

Household robbery is one of the elements of the aggravation of robbery.Its terrible statutory punishment reflects the heavy criminalism of the criminal law.The Supreme Law and the Supreme Test issued three judicial interpretations to regulate the extension of its conviction,but even so,The criteria for the definition of “household” and“household-entering” for robbery are still ambiguous.On the issue of the scope of "households",the theoretical viewpoints of the theoretical circles are more or less flawed.Although the views of judicial interpretation have been recognized by most scholars,they still cannot completely extend the scope of "households".Accurately define;on the issue of the subjective purpose of "household-entering",the theoretical perspectives of the theoretical circles and the views of judicial interpretation have their own advantages and disadvantages,although the theoretically affirmative views define the standard for the looting of households.It is the most powerful,but comprehensively examines the number of cases that are converted into robbery after theft in the trial practice.The judicial interpretation can better realize the function and purpose of the criminal law,and can protect the legal benefits of the victim to the greatest extent while taking into account the legal interests of the defendant.Based on this,on the basis of clarifying the focus of theoretical controversy,a total of 100 cases of robbery were collected at Peking University's magic weapon,in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the trial status of home robbery.After combing 100 sample cases,it was found that in the trial practice,various cases of chaos were found in the cases of looting at home,and the phenomenon of different judgments was more serious.In the identification of “household”,the judges are still unable to clarify the extension of the“household” while judging their functionality and place in accordance with judicial interpretation;in the determination of “household-entering”,the purpose of the household is the focus of controversy.There are differences in the use of affirmative,negative,compromise,and judicial interpretations.In specific cases,applying different opinions is bound to result in different findings.The reason why the trial practice is so chaotic on the issue of "household" and "household-entering" is that the reason for thetraceability is that there is no legislative interpretation of the specific definition of "household" and "household-entering" in the robbery of the household.In addition,there are also important reasons for judiciary,mainly due to the confusion of the old and new judicial interpretations and the excessive restrictions in the cases.In view of this,this article will seek solutions from the perspective of interpretation.Based on such a chaotic trial situation,if the extension of "household" and "household-entering" is still blindly restricted,it will intensify the chaos in trial practice.Accordingly,in the use of hermeneutics to identify "household" and "household-entering",it is necessary to have reasonable identification rules in order to better meet the legislative objectives.In general,in the identification of all aspects of "household" and "household-entering" : First,to resolve the confusion of the application of new and old judicial interpretations in trial practice,according to the provisions of Article of the newly amended Legislative Law Judicial interpretation has been included in the scope of the adjustment of the Legislative Law.Therefore,the judicial interpretation must be limited by the principle of application of law as stipulated in Article of the Legislative Law,that is,the principle of “new law is superior to the old law”.Judicial interpretation shall recognize the application of the new judicial interpretation in the process of “household” and “household-entering”.Second,in order to prevent the occurrence of excessive restrictions on interpretation,it shall be in accordance with the principle of the principle of the principle of criminal punishment,and at the same time not violate the law of the crime and the national In the case of predicting the possibility,within the possible semantic scope of the criminal law provisions,the scope of crimes is appropriately narrowed to achieve the balance of crimes in the case and reduce the phenomenon of different judgments.