摘要
《刑法修正案八》将扒窃单列为一种盗窃类型,却并未对扒窃一词作出合理的界定,而扒窃一词本身又不具有明确的内涵与外延,这造成在三年多的实践中,出现了"扒窃"入罪标准不一的现象,无法发挥"扒窃"入罪应有的效果。对于扒窃的界定,应当以随身财产这一要件明确扒窃的内涵,同时以公共场所这一要件明确扒窃的外延,这样不仅有利于扒窃与其他的盗窃行为的区分,也有利于严格控制扒窃的适用范围。此外,对于轻微扒窃案件同样应当入罪,但在量刑时应当予以从宽处罚。
The eighth amendment to criminal law considered the pickpocket theft as a separate type. It did not make a reasonable term for the definition of pickpocket which the term itself had not a clear connotation and denotation. Therefore, in the past 3 years of practice, it has resulted in different ＂pickpocket＂ incriminating standards. For the definition of pick-pocketing, it should be strictly defined to personal property and public places, this will not only differentiate the pickpocket from other kinds of thefts, but also be conducive to strictly control the scope of pickpocket. Furthermore, the same should be the case for the slight pickpocket incrimination, but in sentencing should be punished leniently.
出处
《浙江万里学院学报》
2015年第4期31-35,共5页
Journal of Zhejiang Wanli University
关键词
扒窃
随身财产
公共场所
从宽处罚
pickpocket
personal property
public places
lenient punished
