Identification On Spot Of Housebreaking In Offence Of Robbery And Responsibility Of Inherited Accomplice

The offence of robbery is an offence which severely violates citizens’ personnel rights and property rights,on which the criminal law at home has long made detailed provisions.With the development of the theory of criminal law and judicial practice,many topics worthy of further research on the offence of robbery appear in the judicial identification field.As to the offence of robbery,whether must we take “two spots” into consideration,the traditional theory of this topic is positive attitude,but there are also some different viewpoints.Meanwhile,there are questions about whether “violence” and “property occupation” must be happened indoors.In terms of inherited accomplice,how to identify the later pioneer’s responsibility who has only taken part in the period of property occupation.Thus,for raveling out these questions and correctly comprehend and apply the offence of robbery and responsibility of inherited accomplice,the author takes a case of robbery as an example to analyze these issues to assist the judicial departments in handling the similar case.This thesis consists of four parts.Part one introduces the basic information of the case in this thesis.This part concludes the cause of action,the detail of the case,disagreements between prosecutor and defender,focus of controversy.In part of disagreements,there are reasons why prosecutor thinks defendant Gu is housebreaking robbery and defendant Yong takes same responsibility with Gu and defender thinks defendant Gu is normal robbery and defendant Yong takes responsibility within the scope of property occupation.In part of focus of controversy,these different issues are about identification on “spot” of offence of robbery and responsibility of inherited accomplice.Part two analyzes the issues involved in the case in this thesis from the perspective of the criminal theory.This part concludes the identification on “spot” of offence of robbery and responsibility of inherited accomplice.In part of the “spot”,firstly,the thesis introduces the definition and characteristics of “spot” in robbery and concluded that “spot” should be stand for continuity of time and extensibility of space,then clarify the different viewpoints about “two spots” and concluded that we should hold the standard of “two spots” when identify the offence of robbery.In part of inherited accomplice,the thesis introduces the requirements of this issue,and then ravels out the definition of principal offender and accessory offender in inherited accomplice,and at last,the thesis’ s content around identification on responsibility of inherited accomplice and hold the view that the author endorse compromise theory based on positive theory.Part three is the research conclusion,that is,the crime committed by defendant Gu in the case is normal robbery rather than housebreaking robbery,and defendant Yong in the case should be the principal offender of offence of robbery and take responsibility of the whole crime.Part four is research revelation.According to analysis of the whole case,the author thinks the scope of “spot” of housebreaking robbery should not be extended at random,only the any period of begin to end of violence happens indoors can conform to the identification on housebreaking robbery,and which crime should satisfy the standard of “two spots” as well.And as to inherited accomplice,the author thinks the identification on establishment and responsibility of accomplice should be respectively take into consideration,and should hold the compromised responsibility theory which based on positive theory.This thesis which based a case aims at analysis the necessity of two spots of housebreaking robbery and identification on responsibility of inherited accomplice,by which the author hopes to provide a conclusion concerned the different viewpoints of the two theoretical issues.Meanwhile,theories promote practice,the author hopes this thesis would help judicial practice to settle related puzzling questions.