Legislative Evaluation Of Single Aggravation Condition In Robbery

Legislation technology of Criminal Law changes from sketchy to specific,Criminal Law of1979adopts sketchy legislation technology, which brought hugejudicial discretion space. In order to limit the judicial discretion, Criminal Law of1997uses specific legislation technology, describes and lists the essence of crime aswell as statutory sentence in detail, increases the amount of accusations to makeCriminal Law more rigorous. However, the limitation of judicial discretion has notbring judicial justice as supposed, take the straits in application of aggravated offenseof robbery: if a doer slip into other people’s home to rob a small amount of money, hewill be charged for at least10years sentence even if he rob money just because hismother was seriously ill. Apparently, although such judgment comply with the law, itactually against nature and logical thinking of the public.Generally speaking, as the representative of public opinion, law could meetpublic expectation of justice under legitimate judge. Therefor, current contradictionbetween law and public will probably reveal the unreasonableness of legislation itself.For example, when it comes to the question of aggravated circumstances of robbery,present Criminal Law uses simplified conditions to upgrade sentence. This kind oflegislative mode strictly limited judges’ judicial discretion, as a result, simplifiedconditions’ limitation cannot be remedy through judicial process, which easily resultin widespread severe punishment and injustice judgment.In order to evaluate the mode’s background, distinguishing feature, advantagesand disadvantages, this paper uses historical method, comparative method, andempirical method. Firstly, discover the substantial injustice under formal justice byciting an instance, labor the features of simplified conditions to upgrade sentence.Secondly, point out realistic meaning of the legislative mode,such as: be beneficial tomeet the principle of legality that ask for clarity in description; be beneficial to limitthe judicial discretion, be beneficial to reach the same verdict in the same kind case.On the basis of public will, formal justice ask for legislation’s clarity while substantial justice ask for legislation’s rationality, not until both substantial justice andformal justice are satisfied can legislation get rationality. Thirdly, demonstrate therelationship between realism and idealism through empirical investigation, byanalyzing120groups of data, we can find out the mode’s disadvantages outnumberadvantages,such as severe punishment; simplified conditions lack of enoughconsideration; differences in nature were ignored.According to the demand of formal justice and substantial justice, in the case ofaggravated offense of robbery, realism does accordance with idealism under particularsituations. More often, though, conflicts exist and damage the principle of legality.That’s to say, limitation to judicial discretion sacrifice substantial justice whenpursuing formal justice, and it is necessary to reform formal justice if it has alreadyseriously damage substantial justice.