“扒窃”入罪后的司法审慎  

Getting “Pickpocketing” into the Criminal Law Should Be with Prudence

作　　者：孙万怀[1] 王丽超[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学,上海200042

出　　处：《法学杂志》2013年第11期65-75,共11页Law Science Magazine

基　　金：国家社科基金项目"犯罪治理控制与刑事司法犯罪化的反思"(项目号:11BFX102)的阶段性研究成果;上海市高校一流学科(法学)建设计划的阶段性成果

摘　　要：最新出台的《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理盗窃刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》对"扒窃"的定义是在公共场所或者公共交通工具上盗窃他人随身携带的财物,于是,"公共场所"和"随身携带"是认定扒窃的两个核心要素。对"公共场所"和"随身携带"的解释应当从立法意图和预期后果出发,"公共场所"的本质属性是人流量大并且人员组成不特定,这种本质特征不受人为因素的影响,也不随时间和人数的变化而变化;"随身携带"应当作限缩解释,仅仅指他人身上的财物。在理清"扒窃"的内涵之后,我们需要进一步讨论"扒窃"是否一律入罪的问题,根据立法意图我们可以对一些"扒窃"偶犯、初犯等轻微"扒窃"作非罪化处理,而"但书"规定则是轻微"扒窃"出罪的依据。According to lately judicial interpretation for theft, stealing other people＇ s carry - on items in public area is called pickpocketing. Public area and carry -on are essential elements in defining constitutive requirements of pickpocketing. How to interpret public area and carry -on should be based on the legislative intent and intended consequences. The nature of public area is that it is with a large stream of people and the people there are not specific. The nature is not affected by subjective factors. Besides, it not charged over time and the number of people. Interpretation for carry - on should be narrowed. Carry - on items are just refer to the items on one＇ s body. After the clear connotation of pickpocketing, we need to discuss whether all pickpocketing should be punished by criminal law. According to the legis- lative intent and intended consequences, the liability of slight pickpocketing such as casual offender and first offender of pickpocketing can be imposed not guilty by applying article 13 of criminal law.

关 键 词：扒窃 公共场所 随身携带但书 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学]