“飞车抢夺”案件的几点思考

"飞车抢夺"是比较常见的"两抢"犯罪的作案手段,是一类恶性多发犯罪类型,特别是在南方城市。由于飞车抢夺案件的发生相对其他一些"两抢"案件具有其自身的特点,且飞车抢夺案件发案率高,破案率低,给侦查机关带来了较大压力,并将在较长时期内成为我国刑事犯罪活动中的一个突出的犯罪问题。本文通过对飞车抢夺案件的特殊性进行分析,进而研究有针对性的打击对策就具有很强的现实针对性和必要性了。     

浅议“飞车抢夺”的学理争议与司法处置

驾驶机动车、非机动车抢取他人财物,是近几年发生较为频繁的一种犯罪,司法实践中一般称为＂飞车抢夺＂案件。由于飞车抢夺犯罪具有结伙性、隐蔽性、瞬时性、高威胁性等特征,其对社会公共秩序和群众的安全感已构成严重威胁。我国相关司法解释虽已对飞车抢夺行为做出规定,但由于抢夺者犯罪时的主观目的和客观表现不同,对行为的定性往往不同。因此在学界及司法实务中对这一问题的看法存在一定分歧。在此,本文将对相关问题进行分析。     

论"飞车抢夺"犯罪的法律对策

关于"飞车抢夺"犯罪的性质,从刑事立法到司法解释,从量论探讨到司法实践,目前均无定论,莫衷一是。本文从犯罪构成入手,比较研究了抢夺与抢劫的两种犯罪情形,并提出了法律对策。目的在于形成统一认识,加强对该种严重犯罪的社会防范和打击惩处,以利于社会秩序的和谐安定。     

飞车抢夺行为定性新探

飞车抢夺是交通工具发展之后出现的一种新的犯罪形式,对公民财产和人身安全都有着严重危害。针对此类犯罪,最高人民法院出台了相应的司法解释,在某种程度上明确了飞车抢夺行为的定性。但司法实践的复杂性也要求相关司法解释在行为人主观意图、想象竞合等方面予以完善。     

关于飞车抢夺他人财物定性转化的探讨

“严打”中重点打击的飞车抢夺犯罪存在着三种类型的抢劫转化。一是转化型抢劫 ,即理论上的法定转化犯 ,并有两种转化情况 ,分别适用刑法第 2 6 9条、第 2 6 7条 ;二是案发时抢夺行为性质直接转变为抢劫性质 ,成为标准型抢劫 ;三是结果加重型 (原型抢劫的一种 ) ,这是本文探讨的重点。即飞车抢夺中致人受伤 (不管是什么程度 )的 ,具备客观上采用了危险手段 (存在危险性 ) ,主观上存在间接故意性、放任性 ,行为上有夺财的关联性 ,双重指向 (伤害 )有了结果性 ,应以抢劫定罪科刑。     

关于飞车抢夺犯罪案件的情况分析及法律对策

近年来飞车抢夺犯罪呈不断蔓延高发趋势,已成为当前各地社会治安的突出问题和群众反响极其强烈的焦点问题.笔者试对2002年以来慈溪市案发飞车抢夺犯罪案件的现状、特点和难以有效遏制的原因,以及相关法律对策进行分析探讨,以期对有关部门更好地理解立法精神,准确适用法律,有效打击飞车抢夺犯罪有所帮助和启示.     

飞车抢夺定性问题再探

我国刑法分则中规定有两类抢夺罪向抢劫罪转化的情况。最高院新出台的司法解释中将三种情形的飞车抢夺行为定性为抢劫罪。笔者认为,飞车抢夺的其他各种情形也同样符合抢劫罪的犯罪构成,因此应将各种飞车抢夺行为依照抢劫罪定罪处罚,以期更好地维护社会秩序。     

浅议“飞车抢夺”的定罪问题

“飞车抢夺”是近几年出现的一种新的道路抢夺犯罪形式，是指行为人利用快速行驶的机动车（多为摩托车或者具有一定速度的非机动车），从被害人身边经过，趁其不备，夺取其财物的一种犯罪行为。其具有结伙性、隐蔽性、瞬时性、往往对被害人造成极大的人身威胁，关于“飞车抢夺”的行为定性有多种观点，本文从此类行为的本质特征及社会危害性进行分析，认为应对“飞车抢夺”行为以抢劫定性。     

论"飞车抢夺"致人重伤、死亡中的故意

在飞车抢夺行为致人重伤、死亡如何定性的问题上,刑法学界提出了许多富有建设性的意见和观点,但对于行为人的主观心理意图却鲜有不同的见解和分析。在此,本文从行为人的犯罪心理、过失与间接故意犯罪心理的区别以及现行立法的局限与演进剖析了飞车抢夺致人重伤、死亡案件中行为人的主观故意,希望有助于进一步完善今后的立法和司法解释,更好地贴近于社会而指导司法实践。     

对“飞车抢夺”定性之思考

从文理上解释,"飞车抢夺"是"夺取行为"而非"劫取行为",是"夺取财物"而非"劫取财物";从犯罪构成上看,"飞车抢夺"主观上只是意在"财物"而非在"人身"和"财物",客观上更是直接对准的是"财物"而不是"人身,"通常不具有"人身"和"财物"的复合性。因此,"飞车抢夺"理应被定罪为抢夺罪。这既体现了罪刑法定原则的实质,又符合刑法公正、谦抑和人道的精神。     

预防性犯罪化立法:路径、功能、弊端与完善

预防性犯罪化立法作为我国近年来刑法立法的重要实践,在预防犯罪方面发挥了极其重要的作用。我国预防性犯罪化立法主要有预备行为犯罪化、持有行为犯罪化、煽动行为犯罪化、抽象危险犯这四种实践方式,具有抵御日益积聚的刑事风险、实现刑罚双面预防目的、贯彻宽严相济刑事政策的重要刑法功能。然而,预防性犯罪化立法又存在着引发刑法工具主义滥觞、冲击谦抑主义刑法精神的弊端。随着风险社会的到来,预防性犯罪化立法还将呈现扩张趋势,探索预防性犯罪化立法的科学有效路径势在必行。就未来的预防性犯罪化立法而言,必须以宪法为引领,以刑法的基本原则为遵循,并采取多轨制的刑法立法模式。     

Defending the Criminal Law: Reflections on the Changing Character of Crime, Procedure, and Sanctions

Recent years have seen mounting challenge to the model of the criminal trial on the grounds it is not cost-effective, not preventive, not necessary, not appropriate, or not effective. These challenges have led to changes in the scope of the criminal law, in criminal procedure, and in the nature and use of criminal trials. These changes include greater use of diversion, of fixed penalties, of summary trials, of hybrid civil–criminal processes, of strict liability, of incentives to plead guilty, and of preventive orders. The paper will assess the implications of these changes for the function of the criminal law, assessing the reasons behind them, and examining whether or not they are to be welcomed. Identifying the larger import of these changes draws attention to the changing relationship between state and citizen as well as changes in the nature of the state itself. These can in turn be attributed to a jostling among the different manifestations of the authoritarian state, the preventive state, and the regulatory state. These changes have profound normative implications for a liberal theory of the criminal law that require its re-articulation and its defence. A modest start may be to insist that where the conduct is criminal and the consequences are punitive the protections of criminal procedure and trial must be upheld.

Long-term criminal justice response to human trafficking in south africa: an impossible mission

ABSTRACT

This article explores the propriety of long-term efforts of the South African criminal justice system in combating human trafficking. Though a crime of global dimension, human trafficking has been a reverberating issue of concern to the South African State. Steps have been taken by the State to address this menace, especially from the legal standpoint, and the enlistment of human trafficking among crimes that require an effective criminal justice approach to deal with; yet, the menace has persisted. From a broader doctoral study, using qualitative method, it was discovered (amongst others) that as currently structured, the South African criminal justice system cannot effect a long-term combating strategies against human trafficking. Findings also indicate that the solution to the precipitating factors that fuel the trade in human commodity lies outside the scope and mandate of the criminal justice system. The study further recommends that for an effective response, it is expedient for the State to first address the socio-economic, cultural and political nuances that fuel the trade, rather than mount impracticable pressure on its criminal justice institutions to perform an unrealistic task.     

浅谈公安民警射击技能训练的构思

维护社会治安,保障公共安全,预防控制犯罪,打击敌对势力和各种犯罪活动是公安队伍的基本职能。多年来,许多公安民警在打击和制止各种犯罪行为的斗争中流血牺牲,充分体现了他们对党和人民的忠诚和无私无畏的精神。同时,我们也应该认识到,有些伤亡原本是可以避免的。     

关于我国惩治黑社会犯罪法的立法思考

我国现行反黑刑事法律对于惩治黑社会犯罪起了积极和建设性的作用,但同时也必须看到,现行法律仍存在着一些亟待完善的地方。针对目前反黑实际,应制订反黑单行刑事法律。我国港澳台地区的反黑刑事立法,对于制订大陆地区反黑单行刑事法律,无疑具有重要的参考价值。     

经济全球化与跨国犯罪的防治对策

经济全球化的同时也带来犯罪问题的全球化。当前,跨国犯罪问题日趋突出,国家之间如何加强司法协助共同打击跨国犯罪显得非常迫切。跨国犯罪具有跨国性、有组织性、犯罪手段多样性的特点,因此遏制跨国犯罪必须进行国际司法协助,这就要求国家间在立法、相互交流信息情报、引渡跨国犯罪罪犯、监控追缴赃款赃物上进行合作。目前国际社会在打击跨国犯罪上还存在立法不够完善,自我保护意识太强,反洗钱机制不完善,有政治分岐和种族偏见等问题。各国应该发挥国际合作精神,采取措施解决以上问题,为经济全球化提供一个安全的国际环境。     

论刑事搜查运用之冲突与平衡

刑事搜查作为一种侦查手段,在揭露、证实和打击犯罪过程中发挥着重要作用。但刑事搜查又是一柄“双刃剑”,运用不当或违法实施则可能侵害公民权利。因此,剖析刑事搜查运用的必要性和危害性,考察域外有关国家平衡刑事搜查运用冲突之立法与实践,完善中国的刑事搜查运用。     

刑法预防性立法对犯罪学之影响:困境与出路

当代风险社会及其构成要素,是互相联系、互相成就和互相影响的刑法学与犯罪学的共同知识场域。预防性立法模式在刑法立法实践中确立,预防型犯罪也被简化为安全的技术辅助。犯罪学研究的犯罪现象、原因和对策随之发生变化,其研究范式也便面临危机和挑战。针对预防刑法的“事前法”特征,对其进行研究的犯罪学也应转向“事前”犯罪学。事前犯罪学在传统的“现象-原因-对策”研究范式的基础上,更应进行问题意识和研究方式的转化,为预防性立法走向理性、科学和合理贡献知识。事前犯罪学理论知识,要进入预防性立法的决策场域,就应寻找适合预防性立法的犯罪学逻辑体系。其展现的知识逻辑和问题意识,不是要和预防刑法知识体系合谋,而是要在既有理论的基础上,整合和构建恰当的研究范式和知识库存、跨学科借新智、打破传统事实学窠臼、遵守法治精神,据此走出困境,也为预防性立法提供根据。     

The Criminalisation of Russian State Security

While the Russian authorities may seek to talk up the role their security apparatus plays in combating organised crime, in fact, they are to a large extent falling prey to criminalisation. A culture of corruption and a decade of neglect have combined to create a situation in which not only do police, army, and security officers provide services to ‘civilian’ criminals but organised crime groupings have actually formed within them. These gangs tend to be defined by their location and legal powers, both of which can be abused for criminal ends, and they include police and military officers at the very apex of their respective command structures. There are grounds for hope now that President Putin is beginning to become aware of the practical dangers this poses for Russian national security, not least given the haemorrhage of weapons to criminal and insurgent hands, but, for the immediate future, the security apparatus will remain corrupted and criminalised.     

Preventive Justice and the Presumption of Innocence

When the state aims to prevent responsible and dangerous actors from harming its citizens, it must choose between criminal law and other preventive techniques. The state, however, appears to be caught in a Catch-22: using the criminal law raises concerns about whether early inchoate conduct is properly the target of punishment, whereas using the civil law raises concerns that the state is circumventing the procedural protections available to criminal defendants. Andrew Ashworth has levied the most serious charge against civil preventive regimes, arguing that they evade the presumption of innocence. After sketching out a substantive justification for a civil, preventive regime, I ask what Ashworth’s challenge consists in. It seems that there is broad disagreement over the meaning and requirements of the presumption of innocence. I thus survey the myriad possibilities and extract two claims that have potential bearing on preventive regimes. One claim is that of substantive priority—the criminal law comes first when assessing blame. This is the claim at the root of objections to pretrial detention based on consideration of the crime charged. The second strand of argument is one of procedural symmetry. This is the concern that with respect to citizen/state relations, certain procedures are required, including, for example, proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the offense or defense. Having extracted these claims, I then assess their applicability with respect to the preventive regime defended. I first conclude that the criminal law must share blame and censure with other fora, and thus, the criminal law only has substantive priority when criminal proceedings have been instituted. I then survey whether procedural symmetry is required, specifically assessing whether the preventive regime I defend requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My tentative conclusion is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is warranted.