摘要
刑法修正案(八)及两高关于盗窃的最新司法解释将扒窃与多次盗窃、入户盗窃、携带凶器盗窃区分开来,取消了扒窃入罪的数额和次数两个构成要件要素,这脱离了扒窃刑事立法固有的谨慎和理性。刑法将扒窃作为一种特殊类型的盗窃,并不意味其由结果犯变成行为犯,不应当取消入罪数额限制;从犯罪的本质、刑法谦抑和法的教育机能、公共政策理性角度看,不应取消扒窃入罪的次数限制。打击扒窃司法实践现状拷问着扒窃刑事立法的合理性,有必要恢复扒窃入罪的数额和次数两个要素。
Criminal Law Amendment( 8) and the latest judicial interpretation of theft have distinguished pickpocket form repeated theft,burglary and theft with a weapon,and have canceled the factors of criminal amount and frequency,which go against the traditional ration of pickpocket criminal legislation. As a special form of theft,pickpocket is not behavioral offense,and should not abandon the factor of criminal amount,nor should it abandon the factor of criminal frequency. And judicial practice is questioning rationality of pickpocket criminal legislation. As a result,it is necessary to recover the two factors of criminal amount and frequency.
出处
《中南财经政法大学研究生学报》
2014年第1期118-122,共5页
Journal of the Postgraduate of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law
关键词
扒窃
构成要件要素
刑事立法
司法实践
Pickpocket
Essential Factors of a Crime
Criminal Legislation
Judicial Practice
