论刑法中的“扒窃”

发布时间：2019-01-19 16:52

【摘要】：扒窃是一种群众反映强烈、社会公愤较大的违法犯罪行为。2011年以前,由于大部分扒窃所得不足以构成《刑法》中盗窃罪规定的“数额较大”标准,只能采用行政处罚的方式进行处罚,导致打击力度不够,扒窃行为屡禁不止。2011年5月,《刑法修正案(八)》正式出台,对《刑法》第264条盗窃罪相关条文进行了修改。由于《《刑法修正案(八)》只列明了.空白罪状,并未对扒窃入罪的条件、数额等进行具体明确,在司法实践上产生了不少疑难,也给学界带来了广阔的研究空间。 扒窃行为具有极大的社会危害性和主观恶性,给公安机关办案带来诸多困扰。扒窃行为入罪,不仅体现了宪法和法律对公民财产权和公共安全的保护,体现了对自然人生命个体的尊重,也减少了此类犯罪行为的发生。从司法实践来看,扒窃行为大多入刑,发案数量呈整体下降趋势,但对于扒窃行为的认定方面尚存在诸多问题和争议。 本文认为,公共场所不是认定扒窃行为的必备条件之一,扒窃发生的地点不限于公共场所；扒窃行为本来就包含了从被害人身上窃取财物的意思,扒窃当然以被害人随身携带的财物为对象,且“随身携带”应遵从其应有之意,不能作扩大解释；携带凶器可以成为扒窃入罪后的量刑标准,但不应成为区分扒窃罪与非罪的标准,二者不应混淆；扒窃行为本质上属于盗窃的一种,秘密性是其本质特征之一,扒窃行为具有相对秘密性；扒窃型盗窃罪仍然属于盗窃罪的一种类型,应当于盗窃罪的犯罪既遂形态相一致,属于典型的结果犯,所以扒窃行为存在犯罪未遂等未完成形态。 在目前的司法实践中,扒窃行为入罪,特别是入罪标准和数额的确定存在实践疑难。本文认为,扒窃行为符合结果犯的特征,应遵循主客观统一的原则,按照其侵害的法益大小进行处罚。同时刑法总则中的但书条款具有指导性作用,不能忽略。建议通过司法解释确定扒窃入刑的数额标准,以统一指导司法实践。 本文认为,扒窃行为的处罚标准应比照普通盗窃罪,并参照相关法律解释,设立“三层量刑处罚刑格”模式确定；扒窃未遂行为的处罚要结合行为人主观恶性和客观情况两个方面进行合理确定,对部分犯罪分子主观恶性较大、情节较恶劣的扒窃案件,在犯罪所得金额达不到处罚标准时,可以按照犯罪未遂进行处罚；对既有既遂、又有未遂扒窃案件的处罚,应以盗窃既遂的总金额进行认定,将犯罪未遂部分作为量刑情节,在处罚既遂行为相应的刑格内,从重处罚；对一些情节轻微、主观恶性不大的不构成盗窃罪的扒窃行为,可以对其进行行政处罚；基于“一事不再罚”的原则,多次受行政处罚的违法金额不能累计相加形成刑事处罚的入罪标准,但是否受过行政处罚,可以构成进行刑事处罚的量刑情节。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：江西财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.35

【相似文献】

中国期刊全文数据库 前10条

1 王琳;;欠薪入罪需告别“沙塔式立法”[J];法治论坛;2009年03期

2 周贤日;;恶意欠薪入罪的冷思考[J];法治论坛;2009年03期

3 吴俊;;欠薪逃匿行为入罪需慎行[J];法治论坛;2009年03期

4 杨涛;;虐待珍贵动物致死亟待入罪[J];政府法制;2010年13期

5 左德起;刘海泉;;通奸入罪论[J];法制与社会;2010年11期

6 徐孝军;;“恶意欠薪”入罪之冷思考[J];南京广播电视大学学报;2010年03期

7 荆培才;;对“恶意欠薪”行为入罪的质疑[J];法制与社会;2010年36期

8 张明明;;浅析恶意欠薪入罪的正当性分析及完善[J];经营管理者;2011年13期

9 蒋毅;;醉驾入罪的法律理解与适用[J];西南农业大学学报(社会科学版);2011年11期

10 麻爱琴;;恶意欠薪入罪新论[J];辽宁警专学报;2012年01期

中国重要会议论文全文数据库 前2条

1 周志彬;于阳;;枉法仲裁入罪的正当性分析[A];中国犯罪学年会论文集（2011年度）[C];2011年

2 刘礼国;徐烨;;严重滥用兴奋剂行为入罪的必要性[A];2013年全国竞技体育科学论文报告会论文摘要集[C];2013年

中国重要报纸全文数据库 前10条

1 本报记者 顾敏 黄红芳 任松筠;恶意欠薪入罪，为何判案寥寥[N];新华日报;2013年

2 杨涛;浪费当尽快入罪[N];大连日报;2013年

3 本报记者 胡亮;欠薪入罪有望落到实处[N];中国经济时报;2013年

4 龙敏飞;“浪费入罪”应从公款浪费入手[N];青岛日报;2013年

5 记者 毛一竹;罪与非罪应明确，，不入罪也不等于合法[N];新华每日电讯;2013年

6 重庆市人民检察院 重庆市大足区人民检察院 熊皓 孟传香 刘雯;多次小额诈骗也该入罪[N];检察日报;2014年

7 雷泓霈;欠薪入罪让“老赖”不敢轻易耍赖[N];中国商报;2014年

8 木须虫;降低入罪门槛提升惩腐气压[N];中国商报;2014年

9 周明华;“收受礼金”入罪可治“顽疾”[N];大连日报;2014年

10 肖风　(福建);吃回扣入罪：迟来的正义依然是正义[N];嘉兴日报;2008年

中国博士学位论文全文数据库 前1条

1 胡业勋;立法上的金融违法行为入罪研究[D];西南财经大学;2010年

中国硕士学位论文全文数据库 前10条

1 王兰花;“恶意欠薪”行为的入罪探讨[D];湘潭大学;2011年

2 刘阳阳;欠薪入罪应当慎行[D];昆明理工大学;2012年

3 王漠涵;“扒窃”行为入罪研究[D];大连海事大学;2013年

4 杨雪;同性性侵行为入罪研究[D];黑龙江大学;2013年

5 安丹;酒后驾车行为入罪化问题[D];吉林大学;2011年

6 闵秀姣;醉酒驾驶入罪后的若干问题探讨[D];中国政法大学;2011年

7 彭津金;同性强奸入罪化的思考[D];中国政法大学;2011年

8 梁春松;非法开采地下水的入罪探讨[D];西南政法大学;2011年

9 刘祥平;醉驾入罪问题研究[D];黑龙江大学;2012年

10 熊晓贤;扒窃入罪之批判性思考[D];苏州大学;2014年

本文编号：2411552