扒窃罪的认定和合理性分析.docVIP

河 南 科 技 大 学 阶 段 论 文 题目 扒窃行为的认定及合理性分析 姓 名 董宜楠 院 系 法学院 专 业 法 学 指导教师 王君祥 2012年6月17日  扒窃罪的认定及合理性分析 PICKPOCTETING AND REASONABLENESS OF ZHE CRIME ANALYSIS 摘 要：扒窃在我国的司法实践中很早就有，只是作为一种行政处罚来认定。2011年《刑法修正案（八）》中正式增添了“扒窃”这一罪名，使得扒窃正式成为了一个法律术语，然而关于扒窃的构成要件以及认定还是存在着许多争议的，且“携带凶器”并不是入罪必要条件。同其他犯罪一样，扒窃罪也有未遂状态，对于小件物品，再扒窃过程中遇到其他情况成立未遂；对于大件物品，只要未转移成功，即为未遂。基于刑法的罪刑法定原则等原因，扒窃不应一律入罪。 关键词：扒窃 公共场所 合理性 扒窃入罪 Abstract:Pickpocketing judicial practice in our country very early, just as an administrative punishment to identify. In 2011, the Criminal Law Amendment VIII officially added pocketing the offense, making pickpocketing officially became a legal term, however，the element of the pickpocket and that there still exist many disputes，and lethal not guilty and necessary condition.Like other crime, crime of theft have attempted state，for small items, and then pick-pocketing encounter other process was attempted；for big-ticket items, as long as not successful transfer, namely attemptedBased on the principle of legality of criminal law and other reasons, should not be pocketing all convicted. Key words：Pickpocketing Public places Rationality Pickpocketing incriminate目 录 一、扒窃入罪之法律规定·············································1 二、扒窃入刑的争议及合理性分析·····································1（一）关于扒窃入刑合理性的争议·····································1 （二）扒窃不应一律入刑·············································3 三、扒窃罪构成要件界定·············································4 （一）关于公共场所的认定···········································4 （二）对随身携带财物的理解·········································5 （三）关于扒窃的其他情况说明·······································6 四、扒窃的犯罪形态及认定···········································8 注释······························································10 参考文献··························································11 后记······························································12 2012年夏，洛阳市伊川县的王老太因无人赡养，无力生活，便在菜市场趁他人不备盗被害人林某的钱包，被当场抓获，而钱包中仅有30余元。后该案由检察院审查