On Identifying Robbery Of Housebreaking

Robbery of housebreaking is one of the additional statuses of robbery. Due to the limitation of written law and the complexity of the reality, there are some difficulties on identifying them. There are many factors that could account for those problems. One of them is from the arguing on interpreting the spirit of the legislation of the robbery of housebreaking. Therefore, I would like to begin my research by interpreting the related law and trying to sum up the basic spirit of the legislation. Then I would like to use it as a pharos to make a systematic study on some critical problem such as the basic form, the unfinished form and the transformed statues of robbery of housebreaking. This article is divided into four chapters:The first chapter is on the spirit of legislation on robbery of housebreaking. I believe that the main spirit of the legislation on robbery of housebreaking can be summed up as a limited protection on right of dwelling. On one hand, the legislation emphasizes the protection of the right of dwelling. On the other hand, the strength of this protection is limited. In the first part, I introduced the particular performance and the reason of the protection on the right of dwelling and then sum up to a basic principal to explain the related problem on this issue. The protection of the right of dwelling on the legislation is mainly on the arrangement of the crime and the punishment. On the arrangement of the crime, the legislation is aiming at the direct violation of the right of dwelling. On the arrangement of the punishment, the legislation prepares critical punishment for the violation. In the second part, I introduced the particular performance and the reason of the limitation of protection on the right of dwelling. The limitation of protection on the right of dwelling mainly performs a key character on the conservation for conviction. The juristic explanation also makes a conservative step on it. The reasons for that could be interpreted to these factors: first, the purpose of the legislation is still aiming at the serious statues of robbery. Second, the level of the attention that the whole country could give to the protection of right of dwelling is still limited. Therefore, we should keep a steady step on the explanation of robbery of housebreaking and we should not expand the scope of its punishment. We should also leave enough space for the behaviors on the edge of crime and leaves enough space for the punishment on even qualified behaviors.The second chapter is on identifying the basic composition of robbery of housebreaking. On identifying the basic robbery, we should pay attention to the elements like"house","housebreaking"and the special"spot"element. I believe that"house"refers to the meaning of the principal private residence. It usually has the functional characteristics for people to live in and being separated from outside. On identifying the"house", these two key characteristics should be the functional ones. It is also a combination of both objective and subjective aspects: on the objective aspect, the conductor must behave without a firm authentication from the owner. On the subjective aspect, the conductor must have an intention to commit a crime. In addition, the violence has to be in the house.The third chapter is on the incomplete statues of robbery of housebreaking. The first part focuses on the existence of the incomplete statues of a robbery of housebreaking and the reasons for that. There are three different opinions on this issue. I stand on a positive ground. The reason for this are: first of all, denying the existence of the incomplete statues of robbery of housebreaking confuses the concept of a crime and the concept of the completion of a crime. Second, from the perspective of the balance on the crime and the punishment, the existence of the incomplete statues of robbery of housebreaking is surely necessary for the reality. The second part is mainly about identifying the incomplete statues on robbery of housebreaking. The incomplete form is a crime refers to preparation, attempt and abortion. The key to identifying them is the confirmation on"commence"and"complete standards". There has been arguments on identifying the"commence". I believe that we should not go to extreme on this. Both subjective and objective factors should be covered. From an objective point of view, there must be a great possibility for the danger to happen. From a subjective point of view, acts of human behavior must be able to clearly reflect the criminal intent. Only in this way, the behavior can be identified as a"commence". To sum up, the"commence"of robbery of housebreaking should be considered as a serious of behaviors which can both make a realistic danger and also can reflect the intention to a robbery of housebreaking. There are also arguments on the standards of completion of a robbery of housebreaking. I believe that a combination thought would fit the reality best. Therefore, base on the research of those two characters, I think the intent of a crime of robbery of housebreaking is defined as a conduct that has a success to break in, and also reflect the intention to commit a crime of robbery of housebreaking, but not complete for a reason that comes from other reasons. The conductor neither got the property nor made the serious damages to the victims. The preparation crime of a robbery of housebreaking is defined as a conduct that could be a preparation to the crime like a preparation on tools, but has not reached the"commence"level for others'reasons. The abortion of a robbery of housebreaking is defined as an abortion on the crime during the criminal progress or preventing the consequences from happening.The forth chapter is on transformed robbery of housebreaking. It would be a legal fiction for a behavior to be considered as a transformed robbery of housebreaking. There are some factors should be considered when we are identifying them such as the first acts, the objective elements and the subjective elements. In the first part, for the first acts of a robbery of house breaking, I believe that it should be covered with theft, fraud and snatch. The reasons for this are: first of all, the judicial interpretation of the transformed robbery of housebreaking is not a fiction. Second, we should not confuse with the concepts of the common facts and the facts that can be judged all by the law. For the level of the first acts, I believe that it is not necessary for the behaviors to reach the crime level. The reasons for those are: first of all, from the systematic interpretation on the penal code,"committed a crime"not always refers to a behavior that has to reach the crime level. Second, from the purpose of the legislation, the fiction reflects the negative altitude on the violation from the law-makers. In the second part, I was aiming at the particular identifying problem. On the objective aspect, the transformed robbery of housebreaking's violence has no differences with the common robbery. And the place where it happens should be in the"house". On the subjective aspect, I believe that a person between 14 and 16 years old could also be charged for the crime. Last but not least, to make a robbery of housebreaking, there should be an enough behavior to show the evil ideas.