Formation And Judicial Determination Of The Crime Of Robbery

After analyzing the definition of the crime of robbery given by both foreign and domestic criminal laws, the writer submits that it is an act aiming at illegal possession of property by forcing, threatening, or other means tending to prevent the victim from resisting on the spot, to force the property holder or other interested persons to give up or to rob them of their property on the spot. This concept points out the target of the injury, "the other means" in the act of infringe, and stresses the two "on the spot" of the crime.The main object of the crime of robbery is its public and private right for property, which is decided by the classification of the sub-principles for criminal law, relationship between the conducts of means and purpose of such a crime, foreign legislative style, and Chinese cultural tradition of law. "Public and private property" in the crime does not include the fixed property, which is not merely decided by the characteristics of "on the spot" and its main object, but also accords with the conventions of legislation all over the world. The intangibles differ greatly from the chattels in their management and control. In general, they cannot be occupied and controlled on the spot and do not accord with the characteristic of the crime of robbery-being on the spot, thus, couldn't be the target of the crime. The crime of illegal possession of the proprietary technology by means of forcing, threatening, etc. should be treated as the infringement, not the crime of robbery. However, the illegal property and proprietary interest can the target of a crime, for the previously described properties are possessed either by the country or. by theformer holder, robbery of such properties has the objective quality of such a crime. In addition, robbery of proprietary interest such as debit instrument should be viewed as a kind of special crime, for it differs from the robbery of property not in essence, but in forms. And it is usually penalized like this in practice.There is no need to set a lower limit to the degree of force in the crime. If the actor subjectively intends to get the property by using force on the spot, and objectively carries out the act of robbery by force, it will accord with the essential qualities of the crime and there is no need to consider the lower limit of such a force. "Death in force" in the crime should be understood as negligent homicide, excluding intentional killing. No matter how it is viewed-from the aspect of the constitutional requisites for an intentional homicide and value preference for option of life, or the aspect of the punishment according to the law and the agreement of the legal terms for the criminal law, it should be understood like this. We should identify and judge the act of menace from its four characteristics, which are the quality of forcing, target-directing, spot administrating, and holding a definite purpose, not from its forms. The other means for the crime refers to the ways besides force and menace the actor uses in order to make the victim lose the ability to resist, making him physically controlled or functionally changed, and consequently, to rob him of his property on the spot. The act of getting someone drunk to rob him should also be considered as the other means.The prerequisites for transformational crime of robbery as listed in the criminal law, article 269, should be understood as that the actor has the intention and has carried out the act of steeling, defrauding, or grabbing. There is no need to includethe requirement for "great in amount", for it is not the absolute standard required for the above three kinds of crimes and there is no requirement in amount in the crime of robbery, which has been confirmed in a previous judicial explanation. If we insist that "great in amount" be included in the transformational crime of robbery, it will do harm to the criminal law, article 269 and 263 and will affect the punishment basis and the agreement inside the criminal laws. Generally speaking, the previous acts of such a crime are limited to...