本文選題：盜竊罪 + 扒竊�。� 參考：《華僑大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：2011年5月1日,《刑法修正案(八)》正式開(kāi)始施行。這是1997年刑法施行以來(lái),刑事法律領(lǐng)域法條修改最多的一次立法活動(dòng)。修正案的第39條,將扒竊、入戶盜竊、攜帶兇器盜竊等多種特殊類型的盜竊方式納入刑法規(guī)制的范疇,使得盜竊罪原有的罪狀發(fā)生了較大的變化。而“扒竊”入刑,使得常見(jiàn)多發(fā)的小額扒竊乃至零額扒竊的行為被認(rèn)定為犯罪,“扒竊”也因此由一個(gè)俗語(yǔ)變成了嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)姆尚g(shù)語(yǔ)。所謂“扒竊”不僅要有以非法占有為目的的主觀故意,客觀方面也要求是在公共場(chǎng)所(包括公共交通工具等)竊取被害人的隨身攜帶財(cái)物的行為。近年來(lái),各類“扒竊入刑第一案”新聞報(bào)道的涌現(xiàn),不論是在法學(xué)理論界還是司法實(shí)務(wù)界,或者社會(huì)上都引起了不小的轟動(dòng)和爭(zhēng)議,對(duì)扒竊行為的司法認(rèn)定和理論分析成為當(dāng)務(wù)之急。本文主要圍繞扒竊型盜竊罪的規(guī)范理解和司法適用展開(kāi)研究,內(nèi)容包括引言、正文和結(jié)語(yǔ)三個(gè)部分。正文第一部分主要回顧“扒竊”入刑的立法演變過(guò)程,從原來(lái)的勞動(dòng)教養(yǎng)(行政處罰)到刑事處罰,從數(shù)額標(biāo)準(zhǔn)到數(shù)額標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與次數(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并行,再到多次扒竊即可入刑,可見(jiàn)扒竊行為入刑在立法和司法層面的把握日趨嚴(yán)苛。當(dāng)前盜竊犯罪圈的擴(kuò)大化,不僅出于對(duì)行為本身特殊社會(huì)危險(xiǎn)性的考慮,還因?yàn)榘歉`行為人固有的人身危險(xiǎn)性較大,而且也與當(dāng)下扒竊違法犯罪高發(fā)但懲處不力的現(xiàn)實(shí)有著必然聯(lián)系。第二部分內(nèi)容為“扒竊”入刑后面臨的司法新問(wèn)題,指出目前不管是理論研究還是司法實(shí)踐,對(duì)“扒竊”規(guī)范含義的理解、扒竊行為應(yīng)否一律定罪以及扒竊犯罪的對(duì)象是否應(yīng)具有價(jià)值等問(wèn)題都產(chǎn)生了巨大爭(zhēng)議,相關(guān)觀點(diǎn)甚至針?shù)h相對(duì),由此也造成司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)同案不同判、零額少額入刑及打擊面寬泛化等諸多問(wèn)題,引起公眾對(duì)司法公正和權(quán)威的質(zhì)疑。第三部分主要從歷史解釋、文義解釋及學(xué)理解釋等角度詳細(xì)分析扒竊行為要素的規(guī)范理解,并著重從地點(diǎn)要素“公共場(chǎng)所”、對(duì)象要素“隨身攜帶的財(cái)物”這兩個(gè)方面存在的爭(zhēng)議及應(yīng)然屬性進(jìn)行闡述,以準(zhǔn)確理解“扒竊”的規(guī)范含義。第四部分則結(jié)合刑法總則第13條的但書(shū)規(guī)定對(duì)“扒竊”是否無(wú)條件一律入罪進(jìn)行解析,指出在辦理扒竊案件時(shí)應(yīng)注意結(jié)合行為人的作案動(dòng)機(jī)、造成后果、是否初犯、偶犯等具體情節(jié)進(jìn)行考量,如果行為人的人身危險(xiǎn)性不大或者社會(huì)危害性不明顯,則可以合理引用刑法的但書(shū)規(guī)定作出罪處理。同時(shí),在上述解析的基礎(chǔ)上,指出不管是數(shù)額型盜竊,還是多次盜竊,亦或者是攜帶兇器、入戶盜竊等不同形式的盜竊,都與扒竊型盜竊有著不同的關(guān)系和明顯的分界。如果個(gè)案中出現(xiàn)多種情形重疊的情況,應(yīng)視不同的具體情節(jié)適當(dāng)量刑,防止重復(fù)評(píng)價(jià)及出現(xiàn)同案不同判等問(wèn)題。接著,從法理學(xué)的角度對(duì)扒竊行為有無(wú)未遂與既遂之分進(jìn)行分析,提出扒竊存在未遂狀態(tài),并詳述司法實(shí)踐中如何正確界定扒竊的犯罪狀態(tài)。在結(jié)語(yǔ)部分,筆者針對(duì)“扒竊”入刑以來(lái)司法實(shí)踐過(guò)程中產(chǎn)生的問(wèn)題,提出合理引用刑法總則的但書(shū)規(guī)定、出臺(tái)具體司法解釋、把握好司法尺度等合理化建議,以期有助于扒竊行為入罪化的準(zhǔn)確界定。
[Abstract]:In May 1, 2011, the amendment of the criminal law (eight) was formally implemented. This is one of the most amended legislative activities in the field of criminal law since the implementation of the criminal law in 1997. The thirty-ninth articles of the amendment include the inclusion of a variety of special types of theft, such as pickpocket, burglary, and theft, into the category of criminal law regulation, so as to make the original theft The "pickpocket" is regarded as a crime, and "pickpocket" has become a strict legal term for "pickpocket". The so-called "pickpocket" should not only have the subjective intention of illegal possession, but also the objective aspect is to be in the public. In recent years, the emergence of all kinds of news reports of "the first case of pickpocket entry" has aroused great sensation and controversy in the legal theory circle, the judicial practice circle, or the society, and the judicial cognizance and theoretical analysis of the behavior of pickpockets. This paper mainly focuses on the normative understanding and judicial application of theft type theft, including introduction, text and conclusion three parts. The first part of the text mainly reviews the legislative evolution process of "pickpocket" into punishment, from the original labor reeducation (administrative department penalty) to criminal punishment, from the amount standard to the amount standard and the amount standard. It can be seen that the number of times standard is parallel, and then a number of pickpockets can be put into punishment. It can be seen that the grasp of the action of pickpocket is increasingly harsh in the legislative and judicial level. The enlargement of the current theft crime circle is not only for the special social danger of the behavior itself, but also because of the inherent personal danger of the pickpocket, and it is also illegal with the present pickpocket. The second part is the new problem of judicature that the "pickpocket" faces after entering the penalty. It points out whether it is theoretical research or judicial practice, the understanding of the standard meaning of "pickpocket", the law of theft and whether the object of pickpocket crime should be of value. There are great disputes, and the relevant views are even tat, which also leads to many problems in the judicial practice, such as the different cases of the same case, the small amount of the penalty and the broad generalization of the face width, which cause the public to question the justice and authority of the judicature. The third part analyzes the pickpocket in detail from the historical explanation, the interpretation of literary meaning and the explanation of the theory and so on. In order to understand the standard meaning of "pickpocket", the fourth part combines the proviso of the thirteenth articles of the general law of the criminal law. The fourth part combines the proviso of thirteenth articles of the general law of the criminal law to determine whether the "pickpocket" is unconditional. In the case of crime, it is pointed out that in handling the case of pickpocket, we should pay attention to the motives of the perpetrator, the consequences, the initial offense, the crime and other specific plots, if the person's personal danger is not large or the social harmfulness is not obvious, then the proviso of the criminal law should be rationally used to deal with the crime. On the basis of the analysis, it is pointed out that both the amount type theft, multiple theft, or the carrying of the murder weapon, the burglary and other forms of theft have different relations and distinct demarcation. If there are many cases overlapped in the case, we should measure the penalty according to the different specific circumstances and prevent the repeated evaluation. And then there are different cases of the same case. Then, from the perspective of jurisprudence, it analyses the attempted and accomplished offense of pickpocket, puts forward the attempted state of pickpocket, and details how to define the criminal state of pickpocket in judicial practice. In the concluding part, the author has asked the question of "pickpocket" in the process of judicial practice. On the basis of the proviso provisions of the general provisions of the criminal law, a specific judicial interpretation, a good grasp of the judicial scale and so on, will be put forward in order to help the precise definition of the crime of pickpocket.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華僑大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 史衛(wèi)忠;;論我國(guó)刑法中行為犯的概念[J];法學(xué)家;2000年03期

2 李�；�,童偉華;論行為犯的構(gòu)造[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年06期

3 張明楷;論短縮的二行為犯[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2004年03期

4 任海濤;;單一行為犯之承繼共同正犯研究[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

5 魏修臣;;行為犯概念探討[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年28期

6 劉權(quán)坤;;行為犯研究[J];武漢公安干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

7 劉曉莉;計(jì)拓;;生產(chǎn)、銷售假藥罪作為行為犯的刑法經(jīng)濟(jì)評(píng)析[J];吉林公安高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2011年06期

8 劉紅艷;;論短縮二行為犯及其共犯形態(tài)[J];佛山科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年04期

9 劉紅艷;;短縮二行為犯犯罪形態(tài)研究[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2012年06期

10 ;女鄰居的行為犯不犯法?[J];農(nóng)村天地;1994年08期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 中國(guó)政法大學(xué)刑法學(xué)博士研究生 李懷勝;生產(chǎn)、銷售不符合衛(wèi)生標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的食品罪也應(yīng)改為行為犯[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

2 上海市檢察院 包健;如何認(rèn)定瀆職罪中行為犯未遂[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

3 韓城市檢察院公訴科科長(zhǎng) 劉朝陽(yáng);從方法行為犯如何定罪引發(fā)的探討[N];西部法制報(bào);2010年

4 尚召生 談 強(qiáng);抗拒檢查逃跑劫車的行為如何定罪？[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

5 本報(bào)記者　 孫銘;“行為犯”模式核定騙貸罪[N];21世紀(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào)道;2006年

6 戴娟;對(duì)介紹賣淫罪的幾點(diǎn)思考[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2005年

7 中國(guó)人民大學(xué)教授、博士生導(dǎo)師 趙秉志 上海社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究員、法學(xué)博士 肖中華;如何確定隔地犯的行為和結(jié)果[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

8 武漢大學(xué)法學(xué)院博士研究生 覃劍峰邋山東政法學(xué)院講師 安軍;認(rèn)定編造、故意傳播虛假恐怖信息罪應(yīng)注意的兩個(gè)問(wèn)題[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

9 彭陽(yáng)春;他的行為不應(yīng)構(gòu)成誹謗錯(cuò)誤[N];中國(guó)紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察報(bào);2002年

10 北京市人民檢察院第二分院 孫穎菲;運(yùn)輸毒品罪形態(tài)的認(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉霜;刑法中的行為概念研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 石建軍;盜竊罪新增行為類型研究[D];河北大學(xué);2015年

2 張雅梅;論盜竊罪中扒竊行為的認(rèn)定[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

3 鄭瑋;刑法中居間介紹行為的定位研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

4 田新;暴力行為實(shí)施后取財(cái)行為研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2014年

5 陳婷婷;嚇走竊賊占有贓物行為的定性[D];湘潭大學(xué);2014年

6 陳麗惠;論包庇罪中的包庇行為[D];湘潭大學(xué);2015年

7 蔡敏;論刑法中的污染環(huán)境行為[D];湘潭大學(xué);2015年

8 王剛;論詐騙罪的行為要件[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2014年

9 李春麗;代購(gòu)毒品行為問(wèn)題研究[D];沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué);2016年

10 許曉東;論訴訟欺詐行為的刑法規(guī)制[D];蘇州大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：1951773