An Empirical Study On The Boundary Between Robbery And Extortion

The crimes of robbery and extortion are common types in practice,but the precise distinction between the two crimes in theory and practice is still inconclusive.The representative demarcation standards in theoretical circles are the "violent" standard,the "two spot" standard,and the "freedom of victim's disposition" at the legal level.Among them,the "violence" standard is specifically manifested in three forms: first,whether the perpetrator uses violence.Second,whether violence is the direct cause of the victim's delivery of property.Third,whether the violence has reached the level of suppressing the victim's resistance.The "two spot" standard advocates the use of violence or coercion on the spot and obtaining property on the spot is a crime of robbery,otherwise it is a crime of extortion.There is also a view that the theoretical criterion for the division of the two crimes can only be the existence of the victim's freedom of disposition.The view is that the victim obtains property from the perpetrator without any freedom of disposition,which constitutes a crime of robbery.The victim disposes of property while still having some freedom of disposition,which constitutes the crime of extortion.The theoretical point of view can be said to be an in-depth analysis,induction and summary of the boundary between the two crimes.So in practice,what is the application of each boundary standard and what are the characteristics of their respective cases.On the basis of summarizing the theoretical point of view of the division of the two crimes,a total of 156 relevant cases were collected through the magic weapon of Peking University and other methods.Through empirical investigation,the overview of the practice on the division of the two crimes was understood,and the applicable characteristics and laws in the practice were summarized.Based on the analysis of sample cases,it is found that in judicial practice,different judgments in the same case are more prominent.For the same case,some first-instance courts and second-instance courts have different conclusions.Not only does the second-instance reform convict crime,but also the second-instance reform conviction Sentencing situation.Not only that,the arbitration of the referee also reduced the persuasive power of the judgment.Some judicial subjects deviate from the principle of unity of subjectiveand objective when dividing the crime of robbery and extortion,some ignore the objective aspects,and some ignore the subjective aspects.The first reason for the above problems is that the judicial application of the boundary demarcation standard is not uniform,resulting in different characterization of the case,and even if the same boundary demarcation standard is applied,due to different understandings of the same case,there will be problems such as different judgments.The second reason is that the determination of whether it is enough to suppress the resistance of the victim is vague.Some of them rely on the single factor of violence to judge whether it is "sufficient to suppress the resistance of the victim." Some rely on violence and threats to make judgments,and others believe that violence and threats should be treated.,The time of committing the crime,the location of the crime and other factors to make a comprehensive judgment,the judgment is different,the conclusions are different.The third reason is to over-rely on the theoretical point of view and ignore the comprehensive situation of the case,and this is specifically manifested in two situations:the first case,the mechanical theory applies the theoretical view and ignores the comprehensive situation of the case.In the second case,we stick to a single point of view and ignore the comprehensive situation of the case.Judicial practice relies on a rigid theoretical point of view and the case fact analysis is not comprehensive enough.Because there are various applicable dilemmas for various demarcation standards,and some have "empty areas" that apply,and some cannot separate the two crimes independently,it is necessary to rethink the two crimes.Although there are still different opinions on the boundary between the two crimes,the theoretical point and judicial practice basically reach a consensus: enough to suppress the victim's resistance to constitute robbery,not enough to suppress the crime of extortion.Therefore,it is more reasonable to distinguish between the crime of robbery and the crime of extortion by "whether it is enough to restrain the victim's resistance",and how to judge,it is necessary to integrate the facts of the whole case to make judgments,such as violence,threats,location of the crime,time,and the strength of both parties.Contrast etc.Since the comprehensive judgment is relatively abstract,it is necessary to further understand and grasp this in conjunction with specific cases.Because the comprehensive judgmentis enough to restrain the victim's resistance.The main consideration is the objective factor.To achieve an accurate boundary between the two crimes,it is also necessary to consider the subjective factor,that is,to implement the principle of unity of subjective and objective when dividing the two crimes.To be specific,one is to infer the subjective aspect from the objective aspect.First,determine whether there is an illegal possession purpose through objective factors.If it exists,then based on the objective aspect,determine whether it is the crime of robbery or extortion.The second is to reinforce the objective aspects by subjective aspects,and to prove whether objectively enough to suppress the resistance through subjective purposes and deliberately.In addition,although the above suggestions can improve the rationality and accuracy of the division of two crimes,there are still some problems in the process of analyzing the sample cases that have caused difficulties in dividing the two crimes.In view of the relevant outlook,since most views in practice believe that the crime of extortion includes violence,it is possible to learn from relevant practices abroad.Legislation clearly specifies that the crime of extortion includes violence,and it is necessary to refine the specific content of the two crimes in order to reduce the boundaries.Difficulty.Based on this,by analyzing the theoretical point of view,collecting relevant cases of two crimes,conducting an empirical investigation of the boundary between the two crimes,analyzing the problems in judicial practice,and thinking about solutions,hoping to provide some reference for future theory and practice.