Difficult Issues To Explore New Types Of Larceny

Compared with other types of crimes, the incidence of larceny is relativelyhigh.It is also a world problem to solve.With the development of economic and social,larceny also show different ways of act,the original norms of criminal law have notenough to effectively adjust the larceny of the new situation.Therefore, in order tosolve the larceny crack downs encountered in judicial practice is not enough, difficultto form effective deterrent,and to provide the better protection for citizens’ propertysafety and the personal safety, Legislators of China correspondingly amended larcenycrime in "the Amendment f of Criminal Law (VIII)".In the revision,it added threenovel ways of act of larceny,that is burglary,burglary with taking the lethalweapon,and purse-cutting.They become as common larceny and frequently larceny inparallel elements of constituting crime, the author in this paper called them "newtypes of larceny". At the same time,we also noticed that great changes of the lawapplication have taken place by the judicial department after the law revision,and newissues arise.For instance,the specific definition of three new ways of act of larceny isnot clear,the debate about how the amount required for new types of larceny,and newtypes of larceny exits the not accomplished and accomplished status or not,if itexists,what the standard is.In order to further clear these problems,we need to explainthe law properly and reasonably,only in this way can make the revised law of larcenyis more effective to apply solve the difficulties in judicial practice at present.In this paper, the author studied the above problems by inductive analysismethod, system analysis method of interpretation, legislative purpose andcomparative analysis methods and so on.Firstly,based on the existing researchsituation,the paper summarizes the existing achievements, views, and find out thefocus of contradiction, and then to sum up.Secondly,for this problem of the specificdefinition of three new ways of act of larceny,we need to put it in the whole criminallaw system to explain it.Finally,the author in this article also reference to the relevantlegislation of Germany,Japan,Taiwan,and has carried on the comparative analysis.Hope that through the use of the above methods,can make these problemsanalyzed more thorough reasonable.In the aspect of structure,the paper discussed these problems in a certain waythat from putting forward questions to analyzing and solving problems.Firstly,throughthe combing of larceny legislation evolution in our country,this paper analyzed theprocess of developing from nothing of new types of larceny,and the legislative intentfor larceny of legislators of China."The Amendment f of Criminal Law (VIII)" ishighly controversial in theory,after implementing also encountered problems inpractice.This paper expounds the different views of scholars about three new ways ofact of larceny having became independent accusation,this is the origin of thisproblem.Secondly,after recognizing and defining the specific definition ofburglary,burglary with taking the lethal weapon,and purse-cutting,the authordiscussed how to understand “the Amendment f of Criminal Law (VIII)" havingcancelled the requirement of “relatively large” in the new types of larceny.This paperargues that the law is just cancelled "relatively large" standard, did not cancel the"amount" standard.By the criminal law of larceny being revised,scholars began toargue that the property of “new types of larceny”is behavioral offense orconsequential offense.However,in this paper, the results still think new types oflarceny belongs to consequential offense.Based on the theory of consequentialoffense,the paper argue that new types of larceny exits the not accomplished status.Inaddition,even though new types of larceny standard of its embarking,notaccomplished status,and accomplished status is unified,we should analyze it in thespecific method.Finally,in order to better solve new types of larceny in the judicialpractice of “difficulty”,should also play a proviso of article13thof the criminal lawright from sin function,and with the application of the criminal procedural way.