“扒窃”行为入刑争议问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-07 16:37

本文选题：扒窃行为　切入点：入罪　出处：《中国海洋大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：扒窃行为作为《刑法修正案(八)》新增的盗窃罪的法定罪状之一,被正式写入刑法之中。从扒窃入罪的立法沿革看来,由早期的数额较小的扒窃仅作行政处罚或劳动教养的处理,到进一步数额的规定,再到将次数标准明确规定为入罪条件,直到《刑法修正案(八)》直接将“扒窃行为”作为盗窃罪的行为之一写入刑法,不再需要数额、次数的限制,单纯的扒窃行为即可入罪,扒窃行为经历了系列立法沿革。扒窃行为因其严重的社会危害性与主观恶性,被吸收纳入到刑法的调整范畴之中,存在其入罪的必要性,同时也符合我国宽严相济刑事政策的要求。扒窃直接犯罪化虽然存在其必要性,符合刑事政策的要求,迎合了民众的法律观念,但在具体的司法实践中仍存在诸多问题与争议。“扒窃”缺乏具体认定标准,不要求有数额及次数的限制的一律入罪,模糊了我国行政处罚与刑事处罚的刑事法律体系的界限,使得行政处罚在扒窃行为上被架空,两者难以衔接。扒窃入罪过分宽泛化,打击面过大,占用大量司法资源,使得现实的司法资源难以承担追诉扒窃犯罪的使命,容易造成选择性执法等问题。要摆脱上述困境,解决困惑,现实对策就是明确扒窃的概念及具体行为的认定标准。严格将“扒窃行为”中“公共场所”的范围限定在不特定多数人可以进入、停留的场所,同时要求行为实施时具备“不特定多数人”的人群因素。对于“随身携带的财物”范围具体限定为“被害人放在身上或者放置于其随时都可以对其进行使用支配的身边的财物”。笔者认为,《刑法修正案(八)》中对扒窃行为不再做数额上的限定,并不意味着扒窃行为不受任何条件的限制,在任何情况下一律入罪,对扒窃行为的处罚仍然要受到刑法总则的指导,对情节轻微、危害不大的犯罪行为运用刑法13条“但书”的规定进行出罪,并进一步明确具体何种情形属于“情节显著轻微”,即明确扒窃的最低定罪起刑标准,提出相应的司法建议。
[Abstract]:Pickpocketing, as one of the new crimes of larceny in Criminal Law Amendment (8), has been written into the Criminal Law.From the legislative evolution of the crime of pickpocketing, from the fact that early pickpocketing with a relatively small amount was only dealt with as administrative punishment or reeducation through labour, to the stipulation of further amount, to the explicit stipulation of the number of times as a condition for incrimination,Until the Criminal Law Amendment (8) directly wrote "pickpocketing" into the criminal law as one of the acts of theft, no longer need the amount, the number of restrictions, simple pickpocketing can be criminalized, pickpocketing has undergone a series of legislative evolution.Because of its serious social harmfulness and subjective malignancy, pickpocketing is absorbed into the adjustment of criminal law, and the necessity of its incrimination exists. At the same time, it is also in line with the requirement of our country's criminal policy of combining leniency and severe punishment.Although the crime of pickpocketing has its necessity, accords with the request of criminal policy and caters to the legal idea of the public, there are still many problems and disputes in the concrete judicial practice."pickpocketing" lacks the concrete identification standard, does not require the amount and the frequency limit to be all incriminated, has blurred our country administrative punishment and the criminal punishment criminal legal system boundary, causes the administrative punishment to be in the pickpocketing behavior to be empty,The two are difficult to connect.The crime of pickpocketing is divided into a wide range, the scope of the attack is too large, and a large number of judicial resources are occupied, which makes it difficult for the actual judicial resources to undertake the mission of prosecuting the crime of pickpocketing, and it is easy to cause problems such as selective enforcement of the law.To get rid of the above predicament and solve the puzzlement, the realistic countermeasure is to make clear the concept of pickpocketing and the standard of identifying the concrete behavior.Strictly limit the scope of "public place" in "pickpocketing" to the place where no specific majority can enter and stay, and at the same time require the crowd factor of "not specific majority" when the behavior is carried out.The scope of "carry-on property" is limited to "property placed on the body or placed beside the victim who can use and dispose of it at any time".The author believes that the fact that the amount of pickpocketing is no longer limited in the Amendment (8) of the Criminal Law does not mean that the act of pickpocketing is not subject to any conditions and is criminalized under all circumstances.The punishment for pickpocketing should still be guided by the general provisions of the Criminal Law, and the criminal acts with minor circumstances and little harm should be criminalized by the provisions of the proviso of the 13 articles of the Criminal Law, and the specific circumstances should be further clarified as to which circumstances are "significantly minor in circumstances."That is to say, the minimum conviction standard of pickpocketing is defined, and the corresponding judicial suggestions are put forward.
【学位授予单位】：中国海洋大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】