An Empirical Study On The Judicial Conviction Of Larceny

Larceny can be divided into ordinary larceny and special larceny.Ordinary larceny refers to the existing larceny pattern before amendment 8 of the criminal law,and its entry standard includes "larceny of public and private property,large amount" and "multiple times of larceny";special larceny refers to the new larceny after amendment 8 of the criminal law,and its entry standard includes "Burglary","theft with murder weapon" and "pickpocket".On the basis of whether it is limited by the amount of theft,the larceny of "larceny of public and private property and large amount" can be called amount type larceny,while the other four types of larceny are called non amount type larceny.Five kinds of larceny are equal in rank.If one kind of larceny is carried out and the amount of larceny is satisfied,it can be regarded as larceny separately.Based on the cases of larceny in Laishui County in the past six years,this paper makes a systematic investigation on the judicial application of the revised larceny.In dealing with the sample cases,on the one hand,carry out the classified investigation of "ordinary theft" and"special theft" from the content;on the other hand,carry out the difference between "amount type theft" and "non-amount type theft" from the quantity,so as to provide the target for the following specific interpretation work.In the empirical test,we take the processed sample cases as the material,interpret the judgment reasons in detail from the determination of the type,amount,object and other elements,objectively show the current general practice of the grass-roots courts in determining the nature of theft,and summarize the typical characteristics of the five types of theft judicial decisions according to the judgment conclusions.There are five main problems in the process of judicial cognizance of larceny after modification: the cognizance of larceny still can't get rid of the strong color of "crime of counting stolen goods" the conviction and sentencing of larceny is based on the amount of larceny,and the entry standard of non-amount type larceny is put on hold;in the cognizance of many ordinary larceny,it is often impossible to scientifically clarify the "times" of larceny,or even the larceny that has received administrative punishment within two years The number of acts is accumulated and promoted into the crime;the grasp of "Burglary" is lack of accuracy,especially the evaluation of "special household",which fails to grasp the two characteristics of "place" and "function";in reality,the identification of "carrying murder weapon" is too rigid,especially the "murder weapon" which can neither be used in a week,nor be distinguished from theft tools;in pickpocket theft,in the process of identification,we can't accurately grasp the requirements of pickpockets,and there are still some defects in the evaluation of "carry on".In order to deal with the unreasonable judicial application of larceny,we can improve the judicial recognition of the amount of larceny,the scientific grasp of special larceny and the scientific handling of the concurrence of larceny.In the improvement of the judicial determination of the amount of theft,it is required that the cumulative calculation of the amount should be dealt with scientifically,the sentencing function of the amount of theft should be emphasized,and the amount of special theft should be reasonably grasped.The core elements of special larceny,such as "household","murder weapon" and "belongings with you",should be accurately grasped in order to reverse the identification deviation of all kinds of special larceny.In dealing with the disputes of concurrence of theft types reasonably,judicial correction should be carried out respectively for the concurrence of "amount type theft" and "non-amount type theft".