Studing On Quasi Robbery

To punish and take precautions of crime of pillage are always paid great attention in all countries around the world. There are four legal provisions involving robbery in China's Criminal Law in force among which include three kinds of quasi robbery called transformation quasi robbery, quasi robbery of seizing with lethal weapons , and quasi robbery where people are gathered to commit "beating, smashing or looting" and destroy property respectively stated in Article 269. Section 2 of Article 267, Article 289. Much research has been done on crime of pillage in theoretical circle. Numerous differentiated viewpoints cause chaos and puzzles in judicial departments which directly influenced the proper application of the law. In this article the author first proves that quasi robbery and robbery have identical criminal nature, matched social harmfulness. only different in forms, so quasi robbery is often penalized as crime of pillage. From the angle of criminal structure, quasi robbery is a kind of quasi crime, not transformation offence. Then the author appraises the three kinds of quasi robbery through analysis respectively. A. Transformation quasi robbery. On the base of theories such as setting guilty by law, law interpret, criminal formation, the author demonstrates the essential prerequisite of transformation is committed but not accomplished. The author also differentiates, analyses, explains some related concepts of subjective and objective conditions in transformation, point out some problems in legislation and how properly define the age, accomplice, increased harmfulness and not accomplished in criminal responsibility. B, Quasi robbery of seizing with lethal weapons. Through the studyingof its implication and goal, the author thinks "seizing"', a kind of state, is equal to "holding" in criminal law, on which the author further expounds a lot of defects and contradictions in theory and legislation, proves that the quasi transformation condition is untenable. C, Quasi robbery where people are gathered to commit "beating, smashing or looting" and destroy property. The author points out that as special subject the definition is not all-sided. The quasi requirements of transformation do not belong to selective accusation and rationalization of existence. Lastly, synthesizing these above-mentioned opinions the author put forward a few legislative proposes: do some legislative amendments to Article 269 and 289. abrogate Section 2 of Article 267. declare and penalize robbery of seizing with weapons as seriousness-increased robbery.