Study On The Scope Of Complicity In The Transformation Of Theft And Robbery

Transformed crime is a special provision in our criminal law,as the provisions of transformed crime become more and more,the research on the transformed crime is also more and more extensive.However,it is not clear that the research on the cross between the transformed crime and the joint crime pattern.In practice,the frequent conversion of the crime of robbery and conversion of robbery crime accomplice problem because of the lack of criminal law and the theory of the dispute and make the decision is not the same.Therefore,this paper is intended to study the problem of transforming criminal accomplice from the earliest legislation of robbery,and the crime of theft and crime of transformed robbery in the practice of the high crime rate,full case data,so,this paper specialized study on the scope of complicity in the transformation of theft and robbery.At present,there are few systematic studies on the complicity of theft and robbery.That is to say,in the crime of joint crime,if one person is transformed into robbery,shall the other accomplices be transformed into robbery? Under what circumstances transformed into robbery? If the common theft is transformed into robbery,is it an accomplice after the transformation? Whether there is room for inherit accomplice and one-sided accomplice in transformed the accomplice theory? In order to solve these problems,I wrote this article,the text is divided into the following four parts.The first chapter is the theory of the transformation of the criminal accomplice.The first section is the view that does not agree with the accomplice theory of transformed crime,they don't think there's an accomplice in the transformed crime.The act of violent transformation beyond the intention of joint theft is an excessive accomplice in criminal law.However,the theory of the over limit of accomplice is also different in the theoretical circle.Some scholars agree that” Beyond the joint crime resolution”,some identities “Unforeseeable”,some agree that “The substantive change rules”.These theories are not unified,the necessity of the identification of accomplice in transformed crime,and the need of current judicial practice make the accomplice of transformed crime have room for existence.The second section is the theory of accomplice in the identification of transformed crime.However,these scholars have different views on the specific identification of the transformed accomplice.There are four kinds of theories: "based on the principle of complicity","based on the theory of causal relationship","based on the subjective aspect of accomplice" and "based on the identification of accomplice".These views have their own advantages and disadvantages.The second chapter is on the basis of the criticism of the previous theory,which is based on the theory of the accomplice of the crime of the identification of the near far and far away.The first section is contention that if the antecedent actions can include criminal behavior theory.There are scholars who hold affirmative,negative and eclectic theory in the theoretical circle.Based on the analysis of the three views,I think that: the establishment of a crime as a source of obligation will not be confused with the provisions of the suspension of crime,the criminal act that causes the obligation is objective and not evaluated by criminal law,the first act of criminal behavior does not violate the principle of prohibiting repeated evaluation.So the criminal behavior can be regarded as the first act.The second section is on the basis of the first section,from the process of stealing and robbing the first act,the conditions for the performance of obligations and the consequences of the failure to fulfill the obligations,proved that there is crime of omission in the process of robbery and theft.The third chapter is the specific identification of the scope of stealing and robbing accomplice.The first section is part of the perpetrator of violence,the identification of other accomplices,it is discussed as the duty of the basic theft.Based on the foreseeable possibility to analysis the organized crime of theft;According to the object to analysis the abettor of theft;According to the obligations of the distance between the other actors to distinguish whether the other actors know the violence,whether can they prevent the violence and whether do they use the violence,so as to analysis the act of larceny;According to the help of intentional to analysis the help offender.The second section is about the relationship between the transformed robbery.I through the transformation of the composition of complicity and a practical case to prove this point.The fourth chapter is in order to prevent the improper expansion of the scope of the accomplice to the extent of its limitations.Distinctiveness and identity on the basis of stealing turn to grab determination of crime does not exist inherit accomplice and one-sided accomplice.In the first section,the author discusses that the uniqueness of the crime of theft and robbery is that it is transformed into a standard crime,a crime committed by a specific act,the crime of conversion of complex behavior,the crime of transforming a real crime.The second section demonstrates the identity of the crime of theft and robbery,that is,the specific relevance of Japanese scholars say.The third section on the basis of the transformation of distinctiveness and identity theft robbery case demonstrates that it does not exist successive acomplicity.In the fourth section,the author argues that there is no one-sided accomplice on the basis of the uniqueness and identity of the transformed robbery crime.