On The Case Of Liu And Other’s Robbery

In practice, violates the property interests of cr ime shows a var iety o f s ituations,and joint cr ime is the most common. This jo int crime aga inst property invo lved in alarge number of actors and the circ umstances of the crime is comple x and changeab le.The process of applicab le law requires judic ia l interpretation and theo retica lguidance.After the jud gment of two-stage People’s Count about the case of Liu and other’srobbery, the two defe ndants fina lly convicted and punis hed for robbery. The case hasfour major focus of controvers y, name ly whether the victim is volunteer to surrenderhis property, the degree of actors’ vio lence, the existence of surplus behavior in jointcrime and the difference of conviction. As for the deter mination of beha vior, thevictim is vo luntary to surrender his property, the actors’ behavior didn’t reach theleve l of robbery’s vio lence, it should be defined as use mild vio lence on people of crib,and the case is a joint cr ime case, there is no surp lus behavior. As for thedetermination o f cr ime, firstly, because there is no behavior of d isposing the propertybased on the error understanding by the victim, the case doesn’t constitute a crime offraud. Second ly, because there is no behavior of illegal possession of others’ propertyby stealing secretly, the case also doesn’t constitute a crime o f the ft. Third ly, becausethe actors’ conduct d id not meet the leve l of vio lence that peop le can not or dared notresist, and the actors’ behavior should not be evaluated as robbery with the othermethods, so the case doesn’t constitute a crime of robbery. And no prerequis itecondition of transformed robbery, so it also doesn’t constitute afterwards robbery.Fourth, because the actors’ behavior is actua lly for the purpose of illega l possession,by making the opportunity that others cannot recapture and seize the large amount ofpublic or private property of others on the spot directly, should be the crime of snatch.Through the comprehens ion, we can see that the first and second Peop le’s Courtconvicted and punis hed for robbery is questionable.The trail process of judgme nt is actua lly the process which the judge reconstructsthe truth by evidences and the n after the confir matio n of the truth, applies law inspecific occasio ns. No doubt that the process shall be adhered to the princ ip le ofbeing based on fact and taking law as the cr iter ion. But when the judge confrontssituations of indecis io n in evidence admiss ib ility or le ga l text and language is fuzzy, he might as well take a modestly restraining attitude, try to set achieving theimpartia lity o f the verd ict as a starting point to judge the evidence and choose theapplicable law. Only in this wa y can we truly achieve jud ic ia l justice.