玉石盗窃案件的特点与侦防对策

玉石盗窃案件涉案价值大、查控难度大,呈现出团伙作案、手段多样、目标集中等特点。公安机关一方面要认真细致地进行现场勘查并加强阵地控制、掌握相关情报信息,另一方面则应从教育、宣传、管理等方面采取措施,铲除此类犯罪滋生的土壤,真正实现打防结合。     

新型盗窃行为探析

《刑法修正案(八)》增加了三种新的盗窃行为类型,使盗窃罪的客观构成要件相对趋向于具体化。入户盗窃,是指非法进入他人生活的与外界相对隔离的住所窃取他人财物;携带凶器盗窃,是指行为人随身携带国家禁止个人携带的器械或其他器械进行盗窃的行为;扒窃是指行为人在公共场所盗窃别人随身的财物。对三种新类型盗窃行为方式的研究和探讨,有助于更准确地把握盗窃罪的实质和预防此类犯罪。     

论“携带凶器盗窃”简

2011年5月11日正式实施的《中华人民共和国刑法修正案（八）》（以下简称《修正案八》）增设了盗窃罪的不同犯罪情节,“携带凶器盗窃”就是其中一种.2013年3月最高人民法院、最高人民检察院新出台司法解释第3条第3款规定,携带枪支、爆炸物、管制刀具等国家禁止个人携带的器械盗窃,或者为了实施违法犯罪携带其他足以危害他人人身安全的器械盗窃的,应当认定为“携带凶器盗窃”.“携带凶器盗窃”的“凶器”认定有一定的特殊性;其现实中可能出现的一些具体的情形,以及其与“携带凶器抢夺”的关系不无深入讨论之余地.     

浅析盗窃罪的客观方面

盗窃罪是普遍的犯罪现象和司法机关的打击重点。《刑法修正案（八）》对盗窃罪的客观方面及相应的刑罚措施作了修改完善和补充,增加了＂入户盗窃＂、＂携带凶器＂和＂扒窃＂三种行为,赋予了盗窃罪新的丰富内涵。文章主要对以上三种行为进行分析,指出了司法实践的难题及处理对策。     

新形势下盗窃犯罪若干问题探究

《刑法修正案（八）》增加了盗窃罪的行为方式，对该罪的定罪量刑进行了调整，包括细化追诉标准、认定犯罪停止形态等。文章分析了入户盗窃、扒窃、携带凶器盗窃的认定与适用，认为将“入户盗窃”和“扒窃”作为行为犯对待更符合立法原意和宗旨，同时这种新增的犯罪未遂形态与犯罪理论的停止形态也并不矛盾。     

Health‐Care Data Protection and Biometric Authentication Policies: Comparative Culture and Technology Acceptance in China and in the United States

A proliferation of health information technology (HIT) policies to implement dimensions of e‐health, including electronic medical records, electronic health records, personal health records, and e‐prescribing—along with expanding initiatives on mobile health in developed countries and emerging technologies—has sparked academic inquiry into the protection of privacy and data and the technology to protect privacy and data. This article examines HIT policies in the United States and in China and the use of authentication technologies to assess biometrics as privacy's friend or foe in different political frameworks with varying conceptions of privacy. An analysis of privacy in the context of health data protection, challenging relations of trust between patients and providers, the increasing perspective of health data integrity as a cyber‐security issue, and the growing rate of medical fraud and medical identity theft may yield findings of a convergence of views of privacy and biometrics unexpected of contrasting political cultures.     

密取封缄物行为的定性研究——以李俊东案和李江案为线索的分析

封缄物是加以特殊包装或装入容器,被上锁或者封固的,具有防盗作用的财物整体。"占有"是区分侵占罪与盗窃罪的形式标准,《刑法》应有限承认观念占有,从而确认委托人对受托人控制下的封缄物之内容物的占有。"管理"是区分侵占罪与盗窃罪的实质标准,侵害有管理权限的财物成立侵占罪,反之则成立盗窃罪。管理权限的有无以是否承担占有财物毁损风险的标准进行判断。     

“于一家频盗及一时而盗数家”的古代立法及其现代启示

唐律在“窃盗”条的疏文中规定“其有于一家频盗及一时而盗数家者，并累而倍论”，古代自此始有“于一家频盗”和“一时而盗数家”这种犯罪形态和计赃规则的专门立法，元律和明清律对此予以变更，并在计赃上“以一主为重”。相比之下，唐律“累而倍论”的计赃规则公平合理。这种形态无论是古代还是现代，都是客观存在的社会现实，古代窃盗立法的“于一家频盗”和“一时而盗数家”形态的提出以及立法处置，对我们研究现代相关犯罪同样情形的形态认定和法律适用具有启发意义。     

TESTING SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY USING REINFORCEMENT'S RESIDUE: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS OF SELF‐REPORTED THEFT AND MARIJUANA USE IN THE NATIONAL YOUTH SURVEY*

Critics have expressed concerns regarding measurement strategies or analytic techniques often used in social learning research (Horan and Phillips, 2003; Krohn, 1999; Sampson, 1999; Tittle, 2004). In response to these concerns, this study tests the hypothesized causal relationships among reinforcement, general definitions, and self‐reported crime (theft and marijuana use) using a multilevel modeling approach with longitudinal data from the first five waves of the National Youth Survey (NYS), as well as with indirect parent and friend reinforcement measures that incorporate both the assumed products of reinforcement (expected consequences of behavior) and the efficacy of reinforcement (expected influence of the reinforcement source). Within‐subject analyses present a challenge to the theory as social learning variables do not covary significantly over time with criminal offending rates. Between‐subject analyses offer support for the theory as across‐person differences in average parent and friend reinforcement are significantly related to offending rates, and these reinforcement–crime relationships are mediated partially or fully by learned definitions. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

盗窃罪与侵占罪行为界限的理论纠偏

盗窃罪与侵占罪是一组排他关系的财产犯罪,二罪在行为方式上有区分界限。盗窃罪的行为方式不以秘密性为必要,不允许有暴力,平和地破坏原占有关系是盗窃罪行为的本质特征;非法占为己有是侵占行为,拒不退还、拒不交出是非法占为己有的进一步明确,并不是侵占罪的构成要件要素,易占有为所有是侵占罪行为的本质特征。因而,盗窃罪与侵占罪的行为方式上的界限并不在于行为的秘密性,也不在于是否可以以作为的方式实行,而是侵害占有方式的不同:前者是平和地破坏原占有关系,后者是易占有为所有。