论放火罪中的几个问题

一,放火罪既遂与未遂的界限关于如何确定放火罪既遂与未遂的界限,理论上有多种不同看法。①烧毁财物是既遂,没有烧毁财物是未遂。而不问财物烧毁多少,程度如何。显然,这是以实害结果发生与否作为区分既遂与未遂的标志。这种观点是不科学的。它对放火罪既遂的认定失之过严,有悖现行刑法的规定以及刑法理论。②已经点燃目的物,即便移去引火物或者行为人离开现场后仍能独立继续燃烧的,为放火罪既遂,不能独立继续燃     

国荣智的行为不构成故意放火罪

郭奉孝、王双喜同志在本刊1986年第8期《放火罪,还是毁坏公私财物罪?》一文中,介绍了国荣智案的案情,认为对国荣智的行为应定放火罪。我认为国荣智的行为不构成故意放火罪。放火罪,是指故意放火烧毁公私财物,严重危害公共安全的行为。放火罪的主要特征是:1.在客观方面,行为人必须具有危害公共安全的放火行为。2.在主观方面,只能是故意,包括直接故意和间接故意。     

论放火罪的若干问题

放火罪是具体危险犯而不是抽象危险犯,其侵害的客体是不特定或者多数人的生命、健康和财产安全。放火行为是否威胁到了公共安全,应按照“独立燃烧说”确定。将《中华人民共和国刑法》第114条的规定理解为放火罪的未遂形态,而将《刑法》第115条第1款的规定理解为放火罪的既遂形态,对于合理限定放火罪的处罚范围具有重要的理论与实践意义。     

放火烧单家独屋如何定性问题

我国刑法规定的放火罪,是指故意放火焚烧公私财物,严重危害公共安全的行为.从这个概念出发,确定某一放火行为是否构成犯罪,必须具体分析这一行为对公共安全是否已经造成或足以造成严重的危害.这是区别放火罪和其他以放火为手段的犯罪的重要标志.刑法第一百零五条采取列举的方式,将住宅列为十四种破坏对象之一.一般地说,住宅多位于人群聚居的区域,放火焚烧他人住宅,必然殃及四邻,危害公共安全.但     

论抢夺犯罪中的强拉硬拽行为

抢夺罪是指以非法占有为目的，公然夺取数额较大公私财物的行为。行为人趁他人不备夺取财物，有时被害人来不及抗拒，抢夺成功：有时则被被害人发现，抓住被抢财物不放手，双方形成对峙，行为人通过强拉硬拽而获得财物。对于前者，如果达到数额较大的标准，构成抢夺罪白不必说；对于后者，往往存在构成抢夺罪与抢劫罪的分歧。两罪的法定刑相差较大，正确区分上述情况，具有很大的意义和必要性。     

盗窃罪既遂与未遂的界分

期盗窃罪的既未遂标准，在西方学者的长期争议中，大致形成了接触说、藏匿说、控制说、转移说、失控说和取得说等学说。此外，我国刑法理论界还提出了损失说和失控加控制说两种观点。接触说以行为人是否接触到被盗财物为标准；藏匿说以行为人是否已把被盗财物藏匿起来为标准；控制说以行为人是否已获得对被盗财物的实际控制为标准；转移说以行为人是否已将被盗财物移离原在场所为标准；失控说以被盗财物的所有人或占有、使用、保管人是否实际丧失对该财物的控制为标准；取得说以行为人是否已将被盗财物转移到自己或第三人实际占有为标准；损…     

盗窃还是侵占?既遂还是未遂?

区分一行为是构成盗窃罪还是构成代为保管情形下的侵占罪,关键是要判断行为人在非法占有财物前,该财物由谁占有、是否脱离占有。区分盗窃既遂还是未遂应看行为人是否能够在事实上支配该项财物。     

故意传播艾滋病行为的刑法适用

故意传播艾滋病的行为,不构成我国刑法中的传播性病罪,在当代的医疗水平下,可以认为该行为构成故意杀人罪。在审判时,被害人没有死亡的,只能追究行为人故意杀人未遂的刑事责任。经被害人承诺的故意传播艾滋病行为,也构成故意杀人罪。危及公共安全的故意传播艾滋病行为则会构成以危险方法危害公共安全罪。     

盗窃还是侵占?既遂还是未遂?

区分一行为是构成盗窃罪还是构成代为保管情形下的侵占罪，关键是要判断行为人在非法占有财物前，该财物由谁占有、是否脱离占有。区分盗窃既遂还是未遂应看行为人是否能够在事实上支配该项财物。     

数额认识错误初论

数额认识错误,是指行为人对表现为货币或财物的行为对象的经济价值量的认识错误,即行为人主观上认识到的行为对象的经济价值与实际经济价值的不一致。从本质上看,它并不是一种独立的错误类型,而是属于事实错误中的对象认识错误。是否属于数额认识错误,应当依据法定符合说进行判断。行为人对行为对象数额的认识错误超出构成要件所要求的限度,就会影响到故意的成立以及行为人的刑事责任。     

Measures of opportunity and the calculation of the arson rate: The connection between operationalization and association

The crime of arson is complicated in part because of the motives associated with the offense and the vast assortment of combustible objects or targets deliberately burned in urban areas. This research attempts to conceptualize the crime in light of criminal law and demonstrates that arson occupies a rather unique position. Although classified as a property crime, the legislative intent appears to focus on the protection of human life. Moreover, legislative developments have brought us to the point where burning almost any property is designated arson. There is a growing concern over the incidence of arson, but there has been little discussion of how to calculate the arson rate when the targets of opportunity are not known. The exploratory research presented here addresses the structure of arson rates by using an assortment of indirect and direct measures of opportunity as denominators in the calculation of the arson rate. Factor analysis reduces a 27×27 correlation matrix to six significant factors and demonstrates that some measures share the same underlying rate structure. By using a factorbase scale (dependent variable) for each factor and a set of independent variables, regression analysis reveals that there are differences in the direction of association, the degree of association, and the types of independent variables that associate with different measures of the arson rate.     

Collective efficacy and arson: the case of Malmö

The burning of cars and containers during social unrest has become a topic of both scholarly and public interest in Sweden over the past decade. Studies have suggested that social disorganization theory, or its modern expression collective efficacy, may be important for explaining why some neighbourhoods experience elevated levels of arson and unrest while others do not. To date, no study has explicitly studied the link between arson and collective efficacy at the neighbourhood level. The present study attempts to fill this gap by analysing the association between arson and collective efficacy in the city of Malmö, Sweden. Collective efficacy data from 96 neighbourhoods were collected in 2012 in the Malmö Community Survey (N = 4051). Arson data were collected from the rescue services, which employ GPS-receivers to accurately record the location of incidents. Regression models were fitted for arson, controlling for concentrated disadvantage, ethnic heterogeneity and residential stability. Results show no significant link between collective efficacy and arson following appropriate controls. This suggests that arson may depend on mechanisms other than collective efficacy, at least at the neighbourhood level. Future research may need to focus on alternative theoretical explanations such as strain, or on other levels of analysis than neighbourhoods.     

对盗窃在他人保管之下的本人财物行为的刑法评价

对盗窃在他人保管之下的本人财物行为如何定性,涉及财产罪保护法益范围、盗窃罪故意与非法占有目的内容以及《刑法》第91条第二款的理解等刑法理论问题。合法占有权并非一概都能对抗所有权,对盗窃在他人保管之下的本人财物行为,如果没有索赔或接受赔偿不能构成盗窃罪;反之,如果又进行索赔或接受赔偿的则构成盗窃罪。     

ASSESSING THE VALIDITY OF OFFICIAL DATA ON ARSON*

Prior research has not examined the validity of Uniform Crime Report (UCR) “reported crime” figures on the offense of arson. The reporting of arson is distinguished from that of other index offenses by the requirement that an investigation occur that establishes that a fire has been purposefully set or attempted; the counting of all arsons regardless of their occurrence with other offenses; the detection and reporting of the offense by noncitizens; and the infrequent existence of exclusive police jurisdiction. Because of these unique characteristics, past approaches to assessing the validity of data on index crimes, such as a comparison with victim reports of crime, are not possible or appropriate. In this study UCR data on arson are compared with data obtained through a national survey (n=683) of fire departments. The comparisons indicate that UCR data are significantly lower than the rate of arson reported by local fire departments both overall and across all regions of the country.     

论盗窃虚拟财产的定性

以非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪定性盗窃虚拟财产的行为虽然符合罪刑法定原则的要求,但该罪名不能反映犯罪目的,盗窃虚拟财产的行为也没有扰乱公共秩序,虚拟财产具有价值,也可脱离受害者的控制,并能被盗窃者实际控制,符合盗窃罪的要求,盗窃者如果具有永久性剥夺受害人虚拟财产的犯罪意图的,应该以盗窃罪追究其刑事责任,域外的实践也将盗窃虚拟财产的行为定性为盗窃罪.盗窃虚拟财产的行为也可能构成盗窃罪、侵犯通信自由罪、非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪与破坏计算机信息系统罪,属想象竞合犯.     

论邪教犯罪对公民私法益的侵害与刑事立法

邪教犯罪不是一般的有组织犯罪,而是对社会危害特别严重的有组织犯罪,它不仅侵害了刑法法益中的国家和社会的公法益,而且,严重地侵害了公民的私法益,即严重地侵犯了公民的人身权和财产权。面对邪教犯罪的侵害,我国刑法典突出了对国家、社会公法益和公民私法益的保护,即着重保护国家法律、法规的实施、社会秩序的正常和公民的人身权、财产权安全。但我国刑法的规定相当不完善,其主要缺陷是立法不系统、犯罪主体范围规定得过于狭窄,没有突出特别法与普通法的区别等,这些缺陷影响了我国对邪教犯罪的打击与控制。     

以环境公共利益为保护目标的环境权利理论——从“环境损害”到“对环境本身的损害”

环境损害既包括对环境本身的损害,也包括经由环境污染造成的人身和财产损害。以环境损害为救济对象的各种公民环境权利理论,不能为环境权利的独立存在提供正当理由,因而也遭到公益权论者和人类权论者的怀疑和批评。理论上,环境权利仅仅旨在维护和增进环境公共利益,预防和减少对环境本身的损害。以环境公共利益为保护目标的环境权利理论,可以为环境权利的独立存在提供正当理由,因而也可以回应公益权论者和人类权论者的质疑和批评。这种理论既可以区分公法上的环境权利和现有的各种人权,也可以区分私法上的环境权利和现有的环境人格权、环境相邻权、环境侵权。     

关于诉讼欺诈定性的障碍及立法完善

传统诈骗罪构成要件所预定的内容不能涵括诉讼欺诈行为;将诉讼欺诈定性为诈骗罪有违罪刑法定之嫌;诉讼欺诈所侵害的法益具有双重性,且对司法的妨害要甚于对公私财产权的危害;完善刑事立法单独设罪处刑(欺诈诉讼罪)应是我们的价值取向。     

Predicting symmetry in female/male crime rates

This paper examines changes in female criminality. Data were obtained from 1943 through 1998 on six index crimes: murder, robbery, assault, burglary, auto theft, and larceny. Rape and arson are not included because rape is almost exclusively a male crime, while statistics for arson have not been consistent for the period studied. A review of the literature on female crime is presented. Percentage differences between males and females were obtained for specific crimes for each year. A regression line was computed for this difference by year. Each line is characterized by R², as a measure of confidence in future predictions and “b” levels to determine slope, and the expected year in which male and female crime will achieve equality if current trends continue. The authors also suggest using the year generated as an index on which to compare growth or decline of female crime.     

Governmental Efforts on Homeland Security and Crime: Public Views and Opinions

This paper examines views of the respondents regarding homeland security and traditional crime in the United States. Using questions from the 2007 Penn State Poll, a sample of 862 Pennsylvanians participated through a telephone interview. Participants were questioned about their concerns regarding the effectiveness of homeland security, their fear of crime (white-collar, property, violent and terrorist attacks). The results revealed that citizens were satisfied with the effectiveness of homeland security since the September 11, 2001, attacks. The results indicate that fear of crime is different for demographics, and we were able to show that those that thought homeland security had been effective increased the likelihood of fear of white-collar crime. We were also able to show demographic differences for national spending on crime. In addition, we were able to show that those who believed that homeland security was effective did not believe that national spending was at the proper level for property, violent, or white-collar crime. The implications of these results are discussed.