發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-02 05:22

  本文選題：扒竊 + 違法性�。� 參考：《蘇州大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：《刑法修正案（八）》基于扒竊的社會(huì)危害性嚴(yán)重、人身危險(xiǎn)性大和主觀惡性大等理由將其入刑，有其積極意義，但也因可罰的違法性程度不夠而廣受詬病。其一，扒竊行為不具有非入罪不足以規(guī)制的刑事違法性；其二，扒竊所具有的所謂“人身危險(xiǎn)性”僅為潛在，，而非現(xiàn)實(shí)的危險(xiǎn)狀態(tài)；其三，現(xiàn)今有限的司法資源無法實(shí)現(xiàn)扒竊一律入刑；其四，扒竊一律入罪，不符合刑法的經(jīng)濟(jì)性與輕微犯罪非犯罪化的刑事政策�；谝陨纤狞c(diǎn)理由，扒竊不宜直接入刑。即便可以入刑，也不應(yīng)當(dāng)不加限制地一律入刑。扒竊行為一律入刑，有與刑法的價(jià)值觀、可罰的違法性和罪刑均衡原則相違背之虞，且?guī)в袊?yán)重的法律工具論色彩。 如今，在扒竊已然入罪的現(xiàn)實(shí)狀況之下，徒爭(zhēng)無益，我們應(yīng)該盡力將扒竊入罪限制在合理可控的范圍之內(nèi)，為司法實(shí)務(wù)部門提供相對(duì)可行的適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。主要應(yīng)從地點(diǎn)、對(duì)象、數(shù)額三個(gè)方面對(duì)扒竊進(jìn)行嚴(yán)格的入罪限定，只有滿足行為發(fā)生在公共場(chǎng)所、財(cái)物屬“貼身攜帶”且值得刑法保護(hù)這三個(gè)條件，才可以被認(rèn)定為扒竊型盜竊罪。
[Abstract]:The amendment of the Criminal Law (8), which is based on the serious social harmfulness of pickpocketing, the great personal danger and the subjective malignancy, has its positive significance, but it is also widely criticized because of the insufficiency of the degree of lawlessness that can be punished. First, the act of pickpocketing does not have the criminal illegality which is not enough to regulate it; second, the so-called "personal danger" of pickpocketing is only a potential, not a real dangerous state; third, At present, limited judicial resources can not realize the crime of pickpocketing; fourthly, the crime of pickpocketing is not in line with the economy of criminal law and the criminal policy of decriminalization of minor crime. Based on the above four reasons, pickpocketing should not be directly punished. Even if they can be punished, they should not be punished without restriction. The crime of pickpocketing is in violation of the values of criminal law, the illegality of punishment and the principle of balance between crime and punishment, and has a serious color of legal instrumentalism. Nowadays, under the actual situation that pickpocketing has already been criminalized, we should try our best to limit the crime of pickpocketing to a reasonable and controllable range, and provide a relatively feasible applicable standard for judicial practice departments. We should strictly limit the crime of pickpocketing from three aspects: location, object and amount. Only if the behavior occurs in a public place, the property is "closely carried" and deserves the protection of the criminal law. Can only be considered as pickpocketing larceny.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳家林;;論刑法中的扒竊——對(duì)《刑法修正案(八)》的分析與解讀[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年04期

2 于志剛;;“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”不可行[J];法商研究;2011年04期

3 孫璐;;關(guān)于《刑法修正案(八)》中扒竊入罪的幾點(diǎn)思考[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年09期

4 文春霞;;扒竊獨(dú)立構(gòu)罪之合理性及實(shí)務(wù)認(rèn)定探析[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年19期

5 章其彥;伍光輝;;對(duì)刑法中扒竊行為的法理分析——以《刑法修正案(八)》為視角[J];河北法學(xué);2012年05期

6 李翔;;新型盜竊罪的司法適用路徑[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

7 吳加明;;《刑法修正案(八)》中“扒竊”的司法實(shí)踐認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2011年14期

8 陳興良;刑法的價(jià)值構(gòu)造[J];法學(xué)研究;1995年06期

9 顧武修;淡亞峰;;公然竊取他人放在身邊的物品是否構(gòu)成扒竊[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2012年04期

10 肖怡;;對(duì)扒竊入刑限制條件之探析[J];人民司法;2011年21期

本文編號(hào)：1832526