An Empirical Study Of Pickpocket Theft

Compared with ordinary theft,the crime of pickpocketing not only damages the property security of the victim,but also threatens the personal safety of the victim,so its social harmfulness is greater and the public reaction is stronger.However,because most of the stolen income does not meet the standard of "large amount" stipulated in the Criminal Law,before 2011,the stolen behavior was only punished by administrative penalties.It is also because of insufficient strikes against the stolen behavior that the stolen behavior can not be stopped and even become more rampant.In May 2011,the Criminal Law Amendment(8)was officially promulgated,amending the relevant provisions of Article 264 of the Criminal Law on theft.Although the "Criminal Law Amendment(8)" clearly includes the act of pickpocketing in the provisions of the crime of theft,it only lists the blank charges and does not clearly stipulate the conditions and amount of the crime of pickpocketing,which brings a lot of confusion to judicial practice,but also brings broad research space to the academic community.There are five chapters in this paper:The first chapter is the introduction,which defines the concept of "pickpocketing",and introduces the writing background,research methods,innovations and the purpose to be achieved.The second chapter is about the analysis and investigation of sample judgments of pickpocketing crime.Through the Chinese Judicial Documents Network,the author randomly screened 195 criminal judgments on pickpocket-type theft from2013 to 2018 in seven provinces and municipalities in China.By using the methods of chart,practical research and comparative analysis,the author made a comparative analysis of the amount information,sentencing information and the information of the object of theft contained in the data,and summed up the problems existing in these sample judgments.The law lays the foundation for the following discussion.The third chapter is about the identification of "public places" in "pickpocketing" behavior.Through the analysis and induction of sample cases,the author finds the problems in the identification of "public places" in judicial practice,such as the inconsistency of standards,and then argues on this issue in a reasonable theory,and puts forward his own views through comparative analysis.The fourth chapter is the understanding of "carry-on" in "pickpocketing".First,it summarizes some problems in the understanding of "carry-on" in the sample cases and the heated debate on the scope of "carry-on" in the theoretical circles,and puts forward feasible plans in the light of judicial practice.The fifth chapter is about the determination of accomplished and attempted crime of pickpocket theft,which involves the disputes between consequential crime and behavioral crime,and whether it is necessary to achieve a specific amount of "pickpocket" as the premise of conviction.