盗窃入刑数额减半情形的正当性及适用  

On Legitimacy and Adaptability of Number-halved Theft Incrimination

作　　者：王东海[1,2] 王腾 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学法学院,重庆401120 [2]重庆市江北区人民检察院,重庆400025

出　　处：《广西警察学院学报》2017年第6期13-19,共7页Journal of Guangxi Police College

基　　金：重庆市人民检察院2016年度重点课题(CQJCY2016B04)

摘　　要：2013年"两高"发布的盗窃罪司法解释第二条规定了"减半入罪"的八种情形,开启了后劳教时代一种独特的司法现象。盗窃数额减半入罪的正当性源于其体现的与全额入罪相同的社会危害性。作为减半入罪的犯罪情节经历了量刑情节到定罪情节的转化过程,因刑法回应人民主体意志或社会主流价值观的变动而正当,而犯罪前情节则因规范违反说下的主观恶性更大的考量而正当,且与行为刑法并不矛盾。作为独立标准的减半入罪标准与全额标准具有相同的优先级且与累犯的适用不冲突。In 2003,the Supreme People＇s Court and the Supereme People＇s Procuratorate jointly issued Judicial interpretation of theft,the article 2 of which stipulates eight conditions for number -halved incrimination, opening a unique judicial phenomenon in the post labor- based reeducation. Legitimacy of number-halved theft incrimination originated from the same social harmfulness resulting from i t, as from the full theft incrimination. The criminal circumstances of number- halved theft incrimination have gone through a conversion process from sentencing circumstances to conviction circumstances. The legitimacy of incriminal law is attributed to the changes in the criminal laws responses to people＇ subjective will and the social mainstream values. The legitimacy of pre crime circumstances is attributed to the greater examination of subjective viciousness. Number-halved theft incrimination and the full theft incrimination both give the same priority to their respective standards, which do not conflict with the adaptability of recidivism.

关 键 词：“减半入罪” 社会危害性 正当性 定罪情节 

分 类 号：D924.35[政治法律—刑法学]