Analyze "Destruction" In The Crime Of Intentional Damage To Property

As the necessary component of the Crime against Property, the Crime of Intentional Damage of Properties play important role for the protection of the ownership of Property and the stability of society. There is a big controversy in theory, the main controversy crime against the"damage"is defined, the scope of property and the relevant judicial determination. The most important should be to"destroy"the identification, because the"damage"has determined that the most essential nature of the offense, determines how to correctly distinguish the crime of crimes in non-crimes, the crimes and other crimes. China's current criminal law and judicial interpretation is not on the crime of intentionally destroying property"damage"method detailed instructions on how to establish"damage"standard is a difficult thing, because in reality the damage of the very different forms. This also led to a different definition of academic,there is no uniform standard in practice. The"damage"can not be defined correctly will lead to the crime of deliberate damage of property identified problems, once identified the error will give the perpetrator causing property and personal penalties, or making some of impunity that, this is the perpetrator or the victim will be the most great injustice. To this end, the author from various angles, combined with the crime of existing theory and analysis of foreign legislation, and also combines the characteristics of the crime and the reality that there is some"damage"situation from the"damage"the connotation and extension discussed, specifically the concept and put forward a number of legislative measures to improve, to better help identify criminal law practice.This article is divided into four chapters, as follows:The first chapter provides an overview of crime of intentional damage. Start trace the origin of legislation, our country comes from the deliberate damage of property crimes are the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1979, while the existing criminal law to the original criminal offense of willful damage of property made substantive changes to increase the range of different legal punishment, but the new law Simple counts did not modify the"damage", including what the specific circumstances not specified. As there is no uniform standard, to be grasped by the practice, which not only increases the difficulty of the determination of the crime, but also led to the definition of doctrinal difference. Meanwhile, the crime against the current position in criminal law analysis, that"damage"is"made"to distinguish an act against property; In addition, there are different criminal legal interests of the damage. This makes the crime of intentional damage of property more difficult to identify.The second chapter discussed the definition of"damage"on foreign and domestic"damage"in the way of behavior and results. For foreign"damage"of, from the civil law and common law provisions and the legislative set theory, in particular the civil law of the"damage"has a more specific theory of the distinction between deep meanings. In China, the"damage"is inclined to"Against Utility Theory". However, some scholars hold different views, with"devastating"to define the crime, but the methods have no reasonable standards, and not feasible. At the same time, this chapter also points out the problems faced by existing theories, Three civil law doctrine,the provisions of common law and our view has shortcomings of existing, Either too broad or too narrow, or there is no reasonable standard. These has led to "damage" is defined in a certain degree of ambiguity, not well reveal the "damage" true nature.The third chapter focuses on how unequivocal"damage"concept. First, explicitly"damaging"concept must fully consider correctly conviction also focus submissiveness also consider the judicial practice flexibility. Secondly focus discusses how clear"damage", from destroyed connotation and extension perspective find its essential character. We must break through the traditional"damage"should be on their way to certain restrictions. Therefore, the meaning should be clear from the damage of behavior and results analysis approach, and explicitly"damage"standard. we should sum the lack of"Against Utility Theory",on this basis, be limited, We should be starting the damage acts harmful to society, the damage is different from the ordinary civil law acts, varying degrees of damage and should be classified. Severe destruction is serious destructive; damage, pollution, etc., to a relatively weak, but also has some devastating, However, the impact on the property not seriously than destroy, For the paste, apply effects such as appearance of such behavior should be judged as not a serious social harm, although these actions caused actual harm or a real threat, but not significant, and will not cause harm to the legal interest should be excluded from the damage outside. In addition, in association with destruction of whether recoverable as a standard to judge, should have the characteristics of the behavior of criminal damage were removed from the offense, in addition, in association with damage of whether recoverable as a standard to judge, should have the characteristics of the behavior of criminal damage were removed from the offense, clear the scope of criminal damage. As the damage type of crime is different from the type of crime to obtain some of the features, for some between the edge of damage of criminal and civil actions shall be in accordance with its recoverability determine whether the damage, which is different from civil damage actions. Also, because Article 13 of the Criminal Code but also to refine the requirements of the offense and the blocking of the"Against Utility Theory"the definition too broad to provide a reference, it should be the standard to judge with the existing legislation. As for the"damage"of the extension should be appropriately expanded, due to damage of the property subject to different ways to vary their damage. On the personal computer to delete, modify, add operation, to kill or harm others animals, selling other securities damage act, hide such behavior is also a kind of damage.The fourth chapter presented "damage" is the core of the crime. Specifically the "damage" the connotation and extension will inevitably lead to legislation to make the appropriate adjustments. The existing criminal law crime of intentional damage of property in legislation faced two major problems: first, the charge is unreasonable; second, counts too simple. This does not reflect all the characteristics of the offense is not conducive to judicial determination. Therefore, the following two aspects should be improved. On the one hand, due to the legislative charge mode selection, it reflects the level of a country's criminal legislation, affecting the quality of the activities of the conviction. Intentional destruction of property crime offenses should be appropriately amended to deliberately damage property crime. "Damage" is better than "destroy" by interpretation of the nature of the crime, also consistent with the legislative intent of the crime. On the other hand, the simple crime of intentional destruction of property provision is not targeted, So is the lack of general requirement crude workable, will lead the French Open depopulation, the law should not meet the rigor, and clarity requirements, the consequences are either good at breaking cause of justice, or result in omission of crime, lack of crime punishment, civil liberties have been violated, the rights of the people ultimately can not be guaranteed. Therefore, simple counts should be available to prove the guilt, to make it more consistent with the times, and more conducive to practice identified.