Research On Accomplished Offense Standerd For Special Larceny

In Amendment Ⅷ to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, there are increases, behaviors of "burglary", "theft with a weapon" and "pick-pocketing", within any limit. The purpose of the legislation is undoubtedly cracking down and punishing crimes by expanding the scope of theft and protecting citizens’ rights of property and security in large measure. However, because of uncertain and fuzzy of legislation, it brings lots of problems to judicative practicers. For instance, the judicial interpretation and behavior patterns of "burglary", "theft with a weapon" and "pick-pocketing" are difficult to grasp. Further more, A variety of ways and types of theft behaviors always occur together which make us in trouble. Not only that, the standard of attempted crime and accomplished crime of special theft is unsure. These issues directly effect to application of law, social benefit and oneness of law. This paper clarified the fact is that there is not a single standard of the judgement for accomplished offence as special larceny through analyzing the main differences of special larceny in order to provide certain help and to solve related problems in the judicial application.The paper is divided into four parts.Part one, the prevue generality of special larceny. This part concentrated on connotation and constitutive requirements of special larceny. It concludes meaning, characteristics and legislative significance about "burglary", "theft with a weapon" and "pick-pocketing".Part two, the differences of standard of special theft. It defined the differences of the theory point of view. One is based on literal interpretation or teleological interpretation to judge accomplished offence as delictum commissivum. The other is according to the system interpretation to judge accomplished offence as offense of consequence. Practice also exists in harmony with this two methods. Some scholars of the Supreme People’s Court think that:special theft is unsuitable convicted and punished with larceny, conjuncting with the Criminal Code provisions on the 13th. The opinion of the author is that whatever the literal interpretation, teleological interpretation or system interpretation as basis to determine the special theft as standards is unreasonable.Part there, the analysis of standard of special theft. It is above special legislation significance for special theft, legal malpractice which jugde a offense of consequence is a "burglary" and "theft with a weapon" as the standard of incompleted crime, legal malpractice which jugde a delictum commissivum is a "pick-pocketing" as the standard of accomplished offence and other aspects.Part four, the determination of the standard of special larceny. The author thinks that the determination the accomplished and attempted crime, not only considering a factor, but also combining theft’s new types and characteristics. It is need to concerning comprehensively sites, tools, time and other plots to make a comprehensive judgment. We also should judge a delictum commissivum as a "burglary" and "theft with a weapon" or "pick-pocketing". Meanwhlie, the burglary amount recognized also is the standards of the judgment of pick-pocking.