College life is coming to an end, and everyone knows that you have to pass the final graduation thesis before graduation. Graduation thesis is an important form of preparation, planning, formalization and testing of university learning achievements. How should I write it? The following is my carefully arranged law graduation thesis, welcome to share.

Abstract: In contemporary China, with the development of society and the gradual strengthening of economic strength, the problem of robbery is still outstanding for various reasons. The social harm it has caused has been recognized by people, so it is an important topic worthy of attention to strengthen the discussion on the composition and conviction of robbery. Based on the theories of jurisprudence, sociology of law and other disciplines, this paper comprehensively analyzes the various states and characteristics of robbery in contemporary China, as well as the countermeasures of crime and non-crime. The first chapter starts with the concept of robbery and expounds several elements that constitute robbery. The second chapter discusses that social harmfulness is the fundamental criterion for judging crime and non-crime. The third chapter starts with the lower limit of violence and analyzes the problem of violence through criminal means. In the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh chapters, the author studies several common and difficult robbery crimes from the aspects of whether the coercive behavior of inaction and implied coercion constitutes robbery, real estate and property interests, and whether the object infringes on A's personal rights and obtains B's property on the spot. Conclusion The problems that should be paid attention to in the conviction and sentencing of robbery in practice are put forward.

Keywords: robbery, crime of social harm, non-criminal countermeasures

catalogue

Chinese abstract ........................................ (1)

Directory ............................................ (2)

................................................. (3)

A, the concept of robbery ............................................................ (3)

Second, social harmfulness is the fundamental criterion for judging crime and non-crime. ...................................... (3)

Three. Violence by criminal means ...................................... (4)

Four. Does the coercion of omission and the implied coercion of robbing money constitute robbery .............................. (5)

Verb (abbreviation of verb) Can real estate and property interests become the object of robbery? ....................................................(7)

6. Does it constitute robbery to obtain B's property on the spot by means of infringing Party A's personal rights? ....................(9)

Conclusion ................................................... (9)

Refer to ...................................... (10)

Thank you ....................................... (10)

order

Robbery is a serious violation of personal rights and property rights, and it has always been the focus of our criminal law. In real life, we often see the occurrence of such cases, and the case is very complicated. Article 263 of the Criminal Law has made more specific provisions on this. However, due to the simplicity and generality of legislation, it is impossible for the law to clearly and comprehensively express all the actual situations. Many aspects of robbery have been discussed. First of all, in terms of crime and non-crime, it is a primary issue, because it involves whether it is necessary to file a case, take reconnaissance measures, request for arrest and prosecution. This paper attempts to discuss several controversial issues that have important influence on conviction, in order to be beneficial to practical work.

First, the concept of robbery

Robbery refers to the act of forcibly robbing public and private property by violence, coercion or other means on the spot for the purpose of illegal possession. The object of this crime is the ownership of public and private property and the personal rights of citizens.

The object of this crime is a complex object. When robbery is carried out, it not only causes loss of public and private property, but also may cause personal injury and death, which is an important symbol that distinguishes robbery from other property crimes and makes robbery the most serious crime against property. The object of crime is public and private property and the person of others.

The objective aspect of this crime is the act of robbing the owner, holder or custodian of property on the spot by violence, coercion or other means. Violence refers to the act of hitting or coercing the victim's body so that the victim can't or dare not resist. Such as beating, binding, injury, confinement, etc. As long as the violence is enough to restrain each other's resistance, it is not required to actually restrain each other's resistance, nor is it required to have the nature of endangering personal safety. Coercion refers to the act of threatening to use violence immediately on the spot to force the victim to resist. Coercion can be through language, but also through actions and gestures. Its characteristic is that it will immediately realize the content of coercion if it does not deliver property or resist. Other methods refer to coercive methods that make the victim ignorant of resistance or lose the ability to resist, except violence and coercion. For example, anesthesia with drugs, getting drunk with wine, poisoning people, etc.

The subject of this crime is the general subject. Subjectively, it is intentional and has the purpose of illegally occupying public and private property [1]. The intent of robbery means that the perpetrator knows that his robbery will lead to the harmful result of infringing on others' personal and property, and hopes or lets this result happen. Among them, the actor's damage to others' property can only be the hope psychology, but the damage to others may be the laissez-faire psychology. Because it is not necessary to cause personal injury or death to others, on the whole, the intention of robbery is direct intention, that is, for the purpose of illegal possession.

Second, social harmfulness is the fundamental criterion for judging crime and non-crime.

Serious social harm is the essential feature of crime. The fundamental reason why an act becomes a crime and is punished by penalty is that it seriously infringes on the social relations protected by criminal law. The constitution of crime is the external legal embodiment of social harmfulness. Generally speaking, if an act conforms to the constitution of a crime, then the social harm of this act will reach the degree of social harm of a criminal act, and this act constitutes a crime. But the actual situation is not always so simple. The constitutive elements of a crime are only summarized from the complicated actual crime situation, and they are the main aspects, not all, that determine the social harmfulness of criminal acts. Many aspects that are not included in the constitution of a crime, such as the motive of the crime, the demand of the situation (for example, the state adopts heavier or lighter criminal policies in different periods according to the changes in the form of social security), and the changes in the actual situation (for example, the changes in the crime and non-crime of speculation in the planned economy era and the market economy era), will affect the social harmfulness of the behavior under certain conditions. There are many behaviors, which are completely available in terms of the constitutive requirements of crimes, but once all aspects of behaviors are comprehensively considered, their social harm will be reduced, which is not enough as a punishment standard. Considering the actual existence of this situation, in order to adapt the crime and punishment as accurately as possible and ensure the realization of the purpose of penalty prevention, the criminal law gives the law enforcers discretion in Article 13 of the General Provisions: "However, if the circumstances are obvious and slightly harmful, it is not considered a crime." In practical work, we often only pay attention to whether the behavior has the constitutive elements of robbery, but do not comprehensively consider the social harm of the behavior, so there are many inappropriate places. For example:

Because robbery is a serious violation of personal rights and property rights, criminal law does not require the amount of property like theft, and citizens above 14 can become the subject of crime. In judicial practice, some teenagers, even students who have just turned 14 years old, are detained, arrested and prosecuted for robbery because of minor violent acts, such as slapping a few faces, kicking a few feet and asking their classmates for a few dollars. From the point of view of crime constitution, such behavior is undoubtedly in line with the constitutive requirements of robbery, but as mentioned above, crime constitution is a very abstract concept relative to social harm. In fact, in the process of law enforcement, we should not only analyze whether these special circumstances conform to the crime constitution of robbery, but also analyze whether the social harmfulness of such behaviors reaches or approaches the social harmfulness of robbery according to general social common sense and public psychology. The minimum sentence for robbery is three years in prison. If the crimes listed in this article are convicted and sentenced for robbery, the author thinks that it is inappropriate from the perspective of the criminal policy of focusing on education and supplemented by punishment, or from the perspective of pursuing the adaptation of crime and punishment to achieve the purpose of prevention. Moreover, although there is no lower limit for the property amount of robbery in criminal law, the provisions on crime and non-crime in Article 9 of the General Provisions of Criminal Law undoubtedly have guiding significance and legal binding force on the specific provisions of Criminal Law. Of course, some small but serious acts of robbing property should be severely punished according to law. Robbery violates citizens' personal rights and property rights. Only by combining the degree of infringement of these two rights can we explain the degree of social harm of an act.

Three. Commit violence by criminal means.

"Violence" is the most commonly used means of robbery, which violates citizens' personal freedom, health, life and other rights, and also includes forms such as binding, forced confinement, scuffle, beating, injury and even killing. The violent act of robbery must be carried out on the spot, which is carried out by forcibly occupying other people's property on the spot. The object of this kind of violence is generally the property owner or the custodian himself, because in most cases, only by violence against these people can the property be illegally occupied; However, in some cases, people present who have some close relationship with the property owner or custodian may also be subjected to violence. Contrary to the understanding that the amount of property is not an essential element of robbery, people have different understandings of the upper and lower limits of violence in theory and judicial practice. Whether the upper limit of violent behavior, that is, "robbery causing death by violent means" includes intentional homicide, this paper holds that if the perpetrator uses intentional homicide as a means of robbing property on the spot, he will be convicted and sentenced for robbery rather than intentional homicide. Whoever kills the victim first in order to get the victim's property afterwards should be considered as intentional homicide, not robbery [1]. But in practical work, there is often no clear understanding of the lower limit of violence, which is difficult to grasp. The former Soviet Union, Japan, North Korea and other countries clearly stipulated that the degree of violence must reach the level of "endangering the life and health of victims" or "enough to restrain the resistance of victims" [2]. At present, there is no explicit provision in our country's law. In my opinion, there should be no lower limit of violence for the following reasons:

First, the crime of robbery not only violates citizens' property rights, but also violates citizens' personal rights. The degree of infringement of the two rights is equally important to explain the degree of social harm of a robbery. It is unreasonable to think that the amount of property can have no lower limit and the degree of violence needs a lower limit.

Second, the essential feature of robbing money by violence is that violence is used as a means to make the victim afraid, powerless or unwilling to resist, so as to achieve the purpose of robbing money on the spot. As long as the perpetrator subjectively intends to obtain money on the spot through such violent acts and objectively commits violent robbery, it is in line with the essential characteristics of robbery, regardless of whether such violent acts are enough to endanger life and health or to restrain others' resistance. And each victim's physical condition is different. Sometimes, serious violence may not endanger life and health or be enough to restrain the victim's resistance, while sometimes minor violence can do this. If we think that there must be a so-called lower limit for the degree of violence, it is obviously illogical that the former does not establish the crime of robbery and the latter does.

Third, the social harm of light violent robbery is equivalent to that of threatening robbery. Forced violence, no matter how serious, is only a realistic possibility after all, and will not cause actual personal injury. Although the degree of minor violence is slight, it has caused real harm after all. From this perspective, even the slightest violence is more harmful to society than coercion. The former is defined as robbery, and the latter is not necessarily robbery, which makes no sense.

Fourthly, from the actual operation, if we admit the existence of the lower limit of violence, because "minor violence" is an extremely vague concept, it will easily lead to different understandings of law enforcement, which will lead to law enforcement confusion.

Of course, when understanding "there is no lower limit for the degree of violence", just like understanding "there is no lower limit for the amount of property", we should not only examine the two themselves, but also combine them to judge the social harm of behavior.

4. Does omission coercion and implied coercion constitute robbery?

The compulsion of habitual understanding, like violence, is an active behavior. But inaction can also establish coercion. In practice, it is often the case that money is taken on the spot by coercive means of inaction. There are mainly the following three situations: