浅议转化型抢劫罪在司法实践中的适用

新刑法第269条规定：“犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪，为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或者以暴力相威胁的”，依照本法第263条规定的抢劫罪定罪处罚。从这一规定可看出，转化型抢劫罪的前行为必须是“犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪”，后行为(即暴力、暴力威胁)必须是“当场”实施的，才能构成转化型抢劫罪。在司法实践中，转化型抢劫是否存在未遂；对前行为盗窃不够罪，但使用暴力或以暴力威胁，“情节严重”如何理解，法律规定中的“当场”如何认定等，普遍存在一定差异，     

转化型入户抢劫的理解与认定

刑法第二百六十九条规定，“犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪，为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或者以暴力相威胁的”，以抢劫罪定罪处罚。该规定行为通常被称之为转化型抢劫行为。据此，成立转化型抢劫罪，应具备以下三个条件：一是前提条件，即行为人必须是先“犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪”，     

转化型入户抢劫研究

转化型入户抢劫是转化型抢劫的情节加重犯.其先行行为包括盗窃、诈骗、抢夺,并不以该三种行为构成犯罪为前提.转化型入户抢劫应当符合转化型抢劫罪和入户抢劫的认定标准,同时具有特定的情节.转化型入户抢劫具有未遂形态,并适用抢劫罪的既未遂标准.     

对刑法转化型抢劫罪条文的反思与重构

一、转化型抢劫罪的前提条件 (一)转化型抢劫罪前提条件的争论 《刑法》第269条规定:“犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪,为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或者以暴力相威胁的,依照本法第263条的规定定罪处罚。”刑法理论界通常称之为转化型抢劫罪。要适用该条的规定转化为抢劫罪,必须先犯盗窃、     

转化型抢劫罪不应存在未遂形态

转化型抢劫罪,又称准抢劫罪,是指行为人先行实施盗窃、诈骗、抢夺行为,由于发生法定事实,行为性质发生变化,最终以抢劫罪定罪处罚的情况。司法实践中,普遍认为转化型抢劫存在未     

转化型入户抢劫的认定

对入户实施盗窃、诈骗、抢夺犯罪转化为抢劫罪时，是转化为一般抢劫罪还是转化为入户抢劫，司法实践中存在认识分歧。一种观点认为，既然是转化型犯罪，应当认定为一般抢劫罪。另一种观点认为，“入户”属于抢劫罪的加重情节，凡“入户”实施转化型犯罪均应认定为入户抢劫。笔者认为，一概认定为一般抢劫或均认定为入户抢劫，都有悖于罪刑相适应原则。应根据具体案情从以下几个方面综合分析，具体认定。一、实施暴力的程度（一）实施暴力情节严重的情况。行为人在入户盗窃、诈骗、抢夺犯罪过程中为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或毁灭罪证而当场使用暴…     

浅议转化型抢劫罪的前提条件

转化型抢劫是抢劫的一种特殊类型。我国刑法把转化型抢劫罪的基础行为明文规定为"犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪"。但在理论和实务中,转化型抢劫罪的前提条件是否必须构成犯罪存在不同的主张。尽管这些主张都有一定的道理,但是从现行的法律规定和相关的分析来看,这种转化的前提条件应该把基础行为界定为犯罪。     

浅谈事后抢劫罪

事后抢劫罪的逻辑结构与一般抢劫罪的逻辑结构不一样。抢劫罪是以非法占有为目的,以暴力或以当场实施暴力相威胁,或以其他使被害人不能抗拒的方法,当场劫取公私财物的行为。而事后抢劫罪是指犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪,为窝藏赃物,抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证,于行为时实施暴力或者胁迫的行为。理论上,前者称为一般抢劫罪,后者称为准抢劫罪或事后抢劫罪。事后抢劫的犯罪主体、犯罪实行行为、犯罪的停止形态的判断、共犯的成立均迥异于一般抢劫罪。本文认为事后抢劫罪作为一种高发性犯罪,在理论上澄清认识,以指导司法实践很有必要。     

转化型抢劫罪在司法认定中的若干问题

我国《刑法》第269条规定:“犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪,为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或者以暴力相威胁的,依照本法第263条的规定定罪处罚。”此条被认为是“转化型抢劫罪”的规定。“转化型抢劫罪”并不是一个具体的罪名,只是抢劫罪的一种特殊构成形式。它的特殊性在于其不是直接采用暴力、胁迫或其他方法排除他人的反抗,尔后夺取其财物,而是先实施意欲获取财物的行为,被人发现后为抗拒抓捕等而实施暴力或者以暴力相威胁行为,即“先侵犯财产权利,后侵犯人身权利”。     

关于转化型抢劫罪的适用——亦论该罪认定的几个问题

转化型抢劫罪是指犯盗窃、诈骗、抢夺罪,为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭证据而当场使用暴力或者以暴力相威胁的按抢劫罪定罪,但如何适用《刑法》第二百六十九条规定的抢劫罪,刑法理论界与司法实务界一直存在争议,本文将对这一问题进行初步的探讨。     

聚众哄抢财物与聚众“打砸抢”的刑法教义学

聚众哄抢财物行为通常成立聚众哄抢罪;哄抢使用中厂房的物资设备的,是聚众哄抢罪与破坏生产经营罪的想象竞合犯,以聚众哄抢罪定罪处罚;聚众是与哄抢并列的行为或者是哄抢行为的方式或状态,说明了聚众哄抢罪的必要共同犯罪特征;成立聚众哄抢罪未必要有首要分子组织、策划或纠集;聚众哄抢罪的对象是他人占有的动产或者不动产中可以分离的部分;哄抢的本质是公然抢夺或盗窃;不符合聚众哄抢罪的哄抢财物行为可认定为抢夺罪或盗窃罪;聚众哄抢罪与抢夺罪、盗窃罪的共犯有差异;哄抢人采取对人暴力或胁迫等方式,压制被害人反抗而哄抢财物的成立抢劫罪,聚众哄抢罪可以成立事后抢劫;聚众"打砸抢"是聚众实施某些寻衅滋事行为的特别规定;"致人伤残、死亡"应限制解释为聚众"打砸"人所致;"毁坏或者抢走公私财物"是抢劫罪的法律拟制,首要分子以外的人成立寻衅滋事罪(或与敲诈勒索罪、聚众哄抢罪、故意毁坏财物罪等的想象竞合犯)。     

论抢劫罪中的“当场”

我国<刑法>第263条和第269条规定了抢劫罪必须具有"当场"性.以普通用语的规范化方法和刑法用语的相对性为视角,明确抢劫罪中"当场"的内在含义,并得出构成"当场"的几种情形.这对于以区分抢劫罪与其他相似的侵犯财产型犯罪有十分重要的意义.     

拘禁他人并向其勒索财物行为之定性研究--杨保营案的分析

本文是一篇判例研究的论文,主要涉及抢劫罪与绑架罪的区分.通过分析杨保营案,说明在拘禁他人以后迫使其交付财物的行为应定抢劫罪;只有向其亲友或者其他相关者勒索财物的行为才构成以勒索财物为目的的绑架罪.     

抢劫罪既遂与未遂区分标准新探

如何区分抢劫罪的既遂与未遂,历来存在争议,尤其是1997年刑法典实施后,针对八种加重抢劫情节是否存在未遂问题,刑法理论更是聚讼不一。抢劫罪既遂与未遂的争议应立足于法益保护,立法者制定任何一条罪刑规范都有其欲意要保护的法益,只有当这一保护的法益受到侵害时,才成立犯罪既遂。据此,普通抢劫罪和加重抢劫罪除抢劫数额巨大、多次抢劫外,抢劫罪既遂与未遂的区分应以被害人是否失去对财物的控制为判断标准。     

Assessing temporal and weather influences on property crime in Beijing,China

Though the relationships between environment and crime have been studied a lot in many countries, this work is still a void in China. This work presents the study about how property crimes are influenced by the temporal and weather factors in China. With the crime data collected from police, the property crimes pattern by season of year, day of week and time of day are investigated firstly. Then the influence of the temporal variables—major holidays, school close days and weekends—and weather on the crimes are tested. The findings show that the robbery is significantly influenced by the temporal variables but has no correlations with weather, while burglary is not only affected by the temporal variables but also correlated with sun light hours.     

Diurnal relations of criminal behavior

In order to study the correlation between criminal acts and time of day about 900 police reports which covered a period of eight weeks were analyzed. The analysis of 561 reports which have been usuable for evaluation showed that offences against property (theft, burglary) predominantly occur during the day. The activity of burglars more often then the thieves' one goes over into the night. Aggressive offences (including robbery) are mainly observed in the evening and at night. The activity of robbers more often than the ordinary aggressive offenders' one goes over into the next morning. Alcoholic intoxication hardly occurs with offences against property but is significant as far as aggressive offences are concerned. However the day-time variation of occurrence of aggressive offences without intoxication is similar to that of intoxicated offenders.     

Trends in Police-recorded Offences

This article presents 10-year trends (1998–2007) on some common crimes: homicide, assault, rape, robbery, car theft, domestic burglary and drug offences. In addition, a few less common offences in police statistics, such as money laundering, corruption, offences against computer data and systems are discussed, even though trends of these crimes are not available. Trends are shown from Western, Central and Eastern Europe, where significant sociopolitical changes have occurred. Although police data actually describes more the recording practices of the officials than the amount of crime, police data is highly valuable for research purposes. Most countries continuously collect information about police activity, and the police is mostly the starting point for proceeding with a case in the criminal justice system. In the USA, all common offences recorded by the police have decreased during the recent years. In Europe, property crimes, homicide and robbery have decreased in most countries, but violence and drug crimes have increased. According to the crime victim surveys, the increase in assault cannot be explained by the increasing reporting activity of victims; the increase seems real. The level of crime differs considerably in different areas: for instance, homicide is most common in Eastern Europe, but assault is much higher in Western Europe.     

Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery

What happens when victims resist robbers? Logistic regression analysis of over 4500 sample robbery incidents reported in the 1979–1985 National Crime Surveys reveals the following about various forms of victim resistance. Self-protection (SP) of any kind apparently reduces the probability of the robbery being completed, i.e., the robber getting away with the victim's property. Armed resistance is more effective than unarmed resistance, and resistance with a gun, though relatively rare, is the most effective victim response of all. Resistance with a gun also appears to reduce the likelihood of the victim being injured, while two types of resistance appear to increase it: (1) unarmed physical force against the robber and (2) trying to get help, attract attention, or scare the robber away. The robber's possession of a gun appears to inhibit victim resistance, which can sometimes provoke a robber to attack; robber gun possession thereby reduces the probability of victim injury. However, even controlling for victim resistance, robber gun possession, is associated with a lower rate of injury to the victim. Finally, robbers with handguns are much more likely to complete their robberies, and those with knives and other weapons are somewhat more likely to do so, compared to unarmed robbers.     

论抢劫罪的加重犯

对构成抢劫罪加重犯的严重情节应该作严格的限制解释。“入户抢劫”应理解为非法侵入住宅抢劫。“在公共交通工具上抢劫”是发生在公共交通工具上并危及交通运输安全的抢劫。把“多次抢劫”规定为抢劫罪的加重犯不够妥当。“抢劫数额巨大”不包含抢劫未遂的情形。抢劫 (过失 )致死与抢劫 (故意 )杀人有必要分开作规定 ,并且对后者应规定比前者更重的法定刑。“冒充军警人员抢劫”比真正的军警人员抢劫有更严重的危害性。“持枪抢劫”不包括持假枪抢劫。