發(fā)布時間：2019-01-19 16:52

【摘要】：扒竊是一種群眾反映強烈、社會公憤較大的違法犯罪行為。2011年以前,由于大部分扒竊所得不足以構(gòu)成《刑法》中盜竊罪規(guī)定的“數(shù)額較大”標(biāo)準(zhǔn),只能采用行政處罰的方式進(jìn)行處罰,導(dǎo)致打擊力度不夠,扒竊行為屢禁不止。2011年5月,《刑法修正案(八)》正式出臺,對《刑法》第264條盜竊罪相關(guān)條文進(jìn)行了修改。由于《《刑法修正案(八)》只列明了.空白罪狀,并未對扒竊入罪的條件、數(shù)額等進(jìn)行具體明確,在司法實踐上產(chǎn)生了不少疑難,也給學(xué)界帶來了廣闊的研究空間。 扒竊行為具有極大的社會危害性和主觀惡性,給公安機關(guān)辦案帶來諸多困擾。扒竊行為入罪,不僅體現(xiàn)了憲法和法律對公民財產(chǎn)權(quán)和公共安全的保護,體現(xiàn)了對自然人生命個體的尊重,也減少了此類犯罪行為的發(fā)生。從司法實踐來看,扒竊行為大多入刑,發(fā)案數(shù)量呈整體下降趨勢,但對于扒竊行為的認(rèn)定方面尚存在諸多問題和爭議。 本文認(rèn)為,公共場所不是認(rèn)定扒竊行為的必備條件之一,扒竊發(fā)生的地點不限于公共場所；扒竊行為本來就包含了從被害人身上竊取財物的意思,扒竊當(dāng)然以被害人隨身攜帶的財物為對象,且“隨身攜帶”應(yīng)遵從其應(yīng)有之意,不能作擴大解釋；攜帶兇器可以成為扒竊入罪后的量刑標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但不應(yīng)成為區(qū)分扒竊罪與非罪的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),二者不應(yīng)混淆；扒竊行為本質(zhì)上屬于盜竊的一種,秘密性是其本質(zhì)特征之一,扒竊行為具有相對秘密性；扒竊型盜竊罪仍然屬于盜竊罪的一種類型,應(yīng)當(dāng)于盜竊罪的犯罪既遂形態(tài)相一致,屬于典型的結(jié)果犯,所以扒竊行為存在犯罪未遂等未完成形態(tài)。 在目前的司法實踐中,扒竊行為入罪,特別是入罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和數(shù)額的確定存在實踐疑難。本文認(rèn)為,扒竊行為符合結(jié)果犯的特征,應(yīng)遵循主客觀統(tǒng)一的原則,按照其侵害的法益大小進(jìn)行處罰。同時刑法總則中的但書條款具有指導(dǎo)性作用,不能忽略。建議通過司法解釋確定扒竊入刑的數(shù)額標(biāo)準(zhǔn),以統(tǒng)一指導(dǎo)司法實踐。 本文認(rèn)為,扒竊行為的處罰標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)比照普通盜竊罪,并參照相關(guān)法律解釋,設(shè)立“三層量刑處罰刑格”模式確定；扒竊未遂行為的處罰要結(jié)合行為人主觀惡性和客觀情況兩個方面進(jìn)行合理確定,對部分犯罪分子主觀惡性較大、情節(jié)較惡劣的扒竊案件,在犯罪所得金額達(dá)不到處罰標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時,可以按照犯罪未遂進(jìn)行處罰；對既有既遂、又有未遂扒竊案件的處罰,應(yīng)以盜竊既遂的總金額進(jìn)行認(rèn)定,將犯罪未遂部分作為量刑情節(jié),在處罰既遂行為相應(yīng)的刑格內(nèi),從重處罰；對一些情節(jié)輕微、主觀惡性不大的不構(gòu)成盜竊罪的扒竊行為,可以對其進(jìn)行行政處罰；基于“一事不再罰”的原則,多次受行政處罰的違法金額不能累計相加形成刑事處罰的入罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但是否受過行政處罰,可以構(gòu)成進(jìn)行刑事處罰的量刑情節(jié)。
[Abstract]:Pickpocketing is an illegal and criminal act with strong public reaction and public indignation. Before 2011, most of the proceeds from pickpocketing were not enough to constitute the "large amount" standard stipulated in the Criminal Law for larceny. Only administrative punishment can be used for punishment, which leads to insufficient crackdown and repeated prohibition of pickpocketing. In May 2011, the Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) was formally introduced, and the relevant provisions on theft in Article 264 of the Criminal Law were amended. Since the Criminal Law Amendment (8) is only listed. Blank crime has not specified the condition and amount of pickpocketing crime, which has brought a lot of difficulties in judicial practice, and has also brought wide research space to the academic circle. Pickpocketing has great social harmfulness and subjective malignancy, which brings many troubles to public security organs. The crime of pickpocketing not only embodies the protection of citizens' property rights and public security by the constitution and law, but also shows the respect for the individual life of natural persons, and reduces the occurrence of such crimes. Judging from the judicial practice, pickpocketing is mostly criminal, and the number of criminal cases is declining as a whole, but there are still many problems and disputes about the identification of pickpocketing. This paper holds that public places are not one of the necessary conditions for the identification of pickpocketing, and the place where pickpocketing occurs is not limited to public places. The act of pickpocketing involves stealing property from the victim. Of course, pickpocketing is aimed at the property that the victim carries with him, and the "carry-on" should conform to its proper meaning, and it cannot be extended to explain. Carrying the murder weapon can be the sentencing standard after the crime of pickpocketing, but it should not be the standard to distinguish the crime of pickpocketing from the non-crime, and the two should not be confused. Pickpocketing is essentially a kind of theft, secrecy is one of its essential characteristics, pickpocketing is relatively secret; Pickpocketing larceny still belongs to a type of larceny, which should be consistent with the accomplished form of the crime of theft and belong to the typical resultant crime, so there are incomplete forms such as attempted crime in pickpocketing. In the current judicial practice, it is difficult to determine the standard and amount of the crime of pickpocketing. This paper holds that pickpocketing acts accord with the characteristics of consequential crime and should follow the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity and punish according to the legal interest of infringement. At the same time, the proviso clause in the general principles of criminal law has a guiding function and can not be ignored. It is suggested that the standard of the amount of pickpocketing crime should be determined through judicial interpretation to guide the judicial practice. This article holds that the penalty standard of pickpocketing should be compared with ordinary larceny, and the model of "three levels of sentencing punishment" should be established according to the relevant legal explanation. The punishment for attempted pickpocketing should be reasonably determined in combination with the subjective and objective circumstances of the perpetrator. In cases where the subjective malignancy of some criminals is greater and the circumstances are worse, if the amount of proceeds of the crime falls short of the penalty standard, Punishment may be imposed on the basis of attempted crime; For the punishment of both accomplished and attempted pickpocketing cases, the total amount of accomplished theft should be determined, the attempted part of the crime should be taken as the sentencing plot, and the punishment should be heavier within the corresponding punishment frame of the accomplished act. To some minor circumstances, the subjective malignancy does not constitute the theft crime pickpocketing behavior, may carry on the administrative punishment to it; Based on the principle of "no longer punishing the matter", the amount of illegal punishment that has been punished for many times cannot add up to form the standard of incrimination of criminal punishment, but whether or not administrative punishment has been given can constitute the circumstances of sentencing for criminal punishment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.35

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 王琳;;欠薪入罪需告別“沙塔式立法”[J];法治論壇;2009年03期

2 周賢日;;惡意欠薪入罪的冷思考[J];法治論壇;2009年03期

3 吳俊;;欠薪逃匿行為入罪需慎行[J];法治論壇;2009年03期

4 楊濤;;虐待珍貴動物致死亟待入罪[J];政府法制;2010年13期

5 左德起;劉海泉;;通奸入罪論[J];法制與社會;2010年11期

6 徐孝軍;;“惡意欠薪”入罪之冷思考[J];南京廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報;2010年03期

7 荊培才;;對“惡意欠薪”行為入罪的質(zhì)疑[J];法制與社會;2010年36期

8 張明明;;淺析惡意欠薪入罪的正當(dāng)性分析及完善[J];經(jīng)營管理者;2011年13期

9 蔣毅;;醉駕入罪的法律理解與適用[J];西南農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年11期

10 麻愛琴;;惡意欠薪入罪新論[J];遼寧警專學(xué)報;2012年01期

中國重要會議論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前2條

1 周志彬;于陽;;枉法仲裁入罪的正當(dāng)性分析[A];中國犯罪學(xué)年會論文集（2011年度）[C];2011年

2 劉禮國;徐燁;;嚴(yán)重濫用興奮劑行為入罪的必要性[A];2013年全國競技體育科學(xué)論文報告會論文摘要集[C];2013年

中國重要報紙全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 本報記者 顧敏 黃紅芳 任松筠;惡意欠薪入罪，為何判案寥寥[N];新華日報;2013年

2 楊濤;浪費當(dāng)盡快入罪[N];大連日報;2013年

3 本報記者 胡亮;欠薪入罪有望落到實處[N];中國經(jīng)濟時報;2013年

4 龍敏飛;“浪費入罪”應(yīng)從公款浪費入手[N];青島日報;2013年

5 記者 毛一竹;罪與非罪應(yīng)明確，，不入罪也不等于合法[N];新華每日電訊;2013年

6 重慶市人民檢察院 重慶市大足區(qū)人民檢察院 熊皓 孟傳香 劉雯;多次小額詐騙也該入罪[N];檢察日報;2014年

7 雷泓霈;欠薪入罪讓“老賴”不敢輕易耍賴[N];中國商報;2014年

8 木須蟲;降低入罪門檻提升懲腐氣壓[N];中國商報;2014年

9 周明華;“收受禮金”入罪可治“頑疾”[N];大連日報;2014年

10 肖風(fēng)　(福建);吃回扣入罪：遲來的正義依然是正義[N];嘉興日報;2008年

中國博士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前1條

1 胡業(yè)勛;立法上的金融違法行為入罪研究[D];西南財經(jīng)大學(xué);2010年

中國碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 王蘭花;“惡意欠薪”行為的入罪探討[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

2 劉陽陽;欠薪入罪應(yīng)當(dāng)慎行[D];昆明理工大學(xué);2012年

3 王漠涵;“扒竊”行為入罪研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2013年

4 楊雪;同性性侵行為入罪研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2013年

5 安丹;酒后駕車行為入罪化問題[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

6 閔秀姣;醉酒駕駛?cè)胱锖蟮娜舾蓡栴}探討[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

7 彭津金;同性強奸入罪化的思考[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

8 梁春松;非法開采地下水的入罪探討[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

9 劉祥平;醉駕入罪問題研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2012年

10 熊曉賢;扒竊入罪之批判性思考[D];蘇州大學(xué);2014年

本文編號：2411552