The The Imperial Palace Robber Can Be Saved From &Nbsp For His Felony But Is At Least 10 Years In Prison.

In May 8th, 9 exhibits were stolen from the two exhibition of "integration of Tibet and Tibet" in the temporary exhibition on the Imperial Palace. As soon as the news came out, it became the focus of attention of the whole society. The lost exhibits include Jewel handbags and jewel cosmetic boxes, which are exhibited at the two Hongkong Tibet Museum to the the Imperial Palace. They are worth tens of millions of yuan. 58 hours after the case, Shi Baikui, the robber, was captured by the police. Exhibits It has been recovered and returned to the Imperial Palace yesterday.

The Imperial Palace as Collection The cultural treasure house of 1 million 800 thousand cultural relics is one of the safest museums in the world. Its precautionary measures are quite perfect. The theft of the Imperial Palace once again sounded the alarm for heritage preservation. Since the amendment of criminal law (eight) came into effect in May 1st this year, Shi Baikui, a robber, was able to avoid death even though he was guilty of a serious crime.

Since the founding of new China, there have been 6 cases of theft in the Imperial Palace, of which 5 cases have been solved. In these cases, there was no elaborate plot in the movie "stealing the sky trap". There were no robbers with stunts. Only a few young people began to steal treasure when they saw the treasures of the Imperial Palace after one or two days of preparation. Most of these criminals were caught on the spot or quickly captured by the police, and the final result was not death penalty, but life imprisonment.

What will Shi Baikui's fate be? The 264th provision of the criminal law stipulates that theft of public or private property or theft for many times shall be subject to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years, criminal detention or control, or a single penalty. If the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, it shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 10 years. fine If the amount is extremely large or there are other serious circumstances, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined or confiscated.

According to the judge of the second intermediate people's Court of Beijing, according to the current standards of Beijing, the penalty standard for theft is 1000 yuan, and more than 1000 yuan has been sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years; more than 10 thousand yuan has been sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 10 years; and more than 60 thousand yuan has been sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment.

It is reported that the exhibits stolen by Shi Bo Kai are not cultural relics, but their value is about ten million yuan, or even more. They should belong to a "huge amount" and will face more than 10 years in prison or life imprisonment. However, how to sentencing and whether or not they can recover the losses will be closely related to whether they can recover stolen exhibits.

Shi Baikui's "luck" is that the criminal law amendment (eight) promulgated in February has made some changes in the crime of cultural relics and scenic spots and historic sites. It has abolished the crime of robbing ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs, robbing ancient human fossils, fossils of ancient vertebrates, and the death penalty for crimes of smuggling cultural relics and theft. That is to say, there is no death penalty in the statutory penalty for crimes of cultural relics and theft, and the highest penalty is life imprisonment.

Before the implementation of the criminal law amendment (eight), theft of valuable cultural relics and theft of financial institutions are likely to be sentenced to death, which is why two "the Imperial Palace robbers" were sentenced to death. However, in recent years, theft has not been sentenced to death in judicial practice. The amendment to the criminal law (eight) is clear about this. The amendment to the criminal law (eight) came into effect on May 1st this year. Shi Bo Kai committed an offence in May 8th. Therefore, Shi Bai Kai, who is heavily involved in the case, has the chance to make a new life.

Units should be included in the crime of destroying cultural relics.

Beijing second intermediate court Liu Wankun Yang Ziliang

Cultural relics and historical sites have an irreplaceable role in the study of history, archaeology and other disciplines. Once destroyed, it is difficult to repair, and the great value contained in them will no longer exist. But in recent years, events that have damaged places of interest for economic benefits have occurred frequently.

Crime of cultural relics

In the current criminal law of our country, there are sixth main points in the crime of regulating cultural relics and places of interest and historical relics. The fourth chapter stipulates intentional destruction of cultural relics, deliberately destroying the sites of historic interest and historical sites, crimes of negligently destroying cultural relics, illegally selling and presenting valuable cultural relics to foreigners, crimes of selling cultural relics, selling illegally, offering private collections of cultural relics, digging up crimes of ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs, robbing ancient human fossils, ancient vertebrate fossils, and the crime of smuggling cultural relics and theft in other chapters.

Among them, a crime committed by a unit can be illegally sold to a foreigner and donated to a valuable cultural relic. The crime of reselling cultural relics and the illegal sale, donation of cultural relics and smuggling of cultural relics can only be constituted by natural persons.

Unit heritage crime supervision "vacuum"

Judging from the situation of the court in Beijing from October 1997 to March 2011, the crime of the most serious offense in the crime of cultural relics management is the crime of robbing ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs, commonly known as "Tomb robbery", a total of 18. The crime of excavating ancient cultural sites and ancient tombs was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and the minimum sentence was 6 months, and both were fined. The second is the crime of scalping cultural relics, a total of 3. In addition, 3 cases of intentional destruction of cultural relics, intentional destruction of places of interest and negligence and destruction of cultural relics were concluded by the court of Beijing in the same period, all of which were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years.

The status quo of criminal legislation and judicature shows that the crime of intentional destruction of cultural relics, the crime of Deliberately Destroying sites of historical interest and crimes and the crime of negligently damaging cultural relics do not include units, that is, the units that deliberately destroy cultural relics, deliberately destroy sites of interest, and commit negligently damaging cultural relics have not yet entered the scope of criminal punishment.

Because the unit crime is based on the explicit provision of the criminal law, that is, only when the criminal law stipulates that the unit can become the main body of a crime, it is possible to identify the unit as the subject of crime. When a unit intentionally destroys cultural relics, intentionally destroys places of interest and negligently destroys cultural relics, it does not have corresponding criminal provisions to punish them, and to some extent, it indulges such acts. In real life, this situation is mostly rectified by local governments where cultural relics and historical sites are located, and it is not possible to solve such problems from the source.

Deterring unit cultural relics crime with criminal law

There are many reasons for the repeated destruction of cultural relics and historical sites. We should protect these valuable heritage from the most effective and fundamental way of legislation. We propose to add three units to the crime of intentional destruction of cultural relics, intentional destruction of places of historical interest and crime of negligently destroying cultural relics. The necessity of such an increase lies in: first, most of the main bodies who implement such acts and cause irreversible consequences are units instead of individuals. Due to its limited ability and limited conditions, natural persons often exist in crimes of impairing cultural relics management, such as robbing ancient cultural sites and burying ancient tombs. Acts of mass destruction, destruction of cultural relics, places of interest and historical sites can only be implemented by units, and the addition of units to criminal subjects is more conducive to the supervision and punishment of such acts.

Secondly, the regulation of such acts by the criminal law has a strong deterrent. The criminal law is a law guaranteed by the state's coercive force. It has the strongest punishment intensity. These behaviors are regulated by the criminal law. Increasing the cost of crime can reduce and prevent the occurrence of such acts to a certain extent, so as to better protect cultural relics and historical sites.

Once again, criminalization of such acts will result in a constant standard for evaluating such acts, which is conducive to the protection of cultural relics and historical sites. In the past, this kind of behavior is managed by the government, and the discretionary elements are large. On the one hand, it is easy for the regulators to carry out illegal acts themselves without punishment. On the other hand, it is easy to cause the situation of "more public attention, greater punishment, less public concern and less punishment". This kind of behavior should be regulated by the constant standard of criminal law, and the judicial organs should make a fair decision on such acts according to the law and specific cases. It can dispel the fluke psychology of the units performing destructive acts, reduce the occurrence of such acts, and act as deterrent.