Bowden v. Caldor

Abstract

Using the facts of the Bowden v. Caldorlawsuit in which Bowden alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and wrongful discharge against his employer, this paper explores the mistreatment at the hands of private security officers and store personnel. This exploration is important because it discusses several issues such as: (1) the racially influenced misconduct of private security officers; (2) the damage awards often awarded to victims of private security misconduct; (3) the effect deceptive practices can have on false confessions, especially those of juveniles; and (4) the abuse of juveniles by private security officers. To curtail abusive practices, the authors recommend that store owners establish more stringent store policies pertaining to handling employees during theft investigations.     

审前重复供述的排除问题研究

在非法证据排除规则确立后,审前重复供述的排除问题浮出水面.从确保非法证据排除规则有效实施、消极的实证真实发现主义、人权保障以及遏制刑讯的角度看,审前重复供述应该排除.非法取证行为的持续影响效力理论是排除审前重复供述的依据,排除审前重复供述的标准是刑讯逼供等非法行为与重复供述之间存在因果关系.具体来说,排除重复供述,需要有刑讯逼供等非法取供行为,且该行为对被追诉人产生了较大影响,使其供述自由受到了较大限制.排除非法口供后,可反驳地推定重复供述不具有可采性.控方如欲使用重复供述,需要证明不存在因果关系.排除重复供述可能会遇到诸多障碍,需要通过法官独立司法维护司法公正.     

盗窃正版软件标签行为性质界定——以上海首例盗窃COA标签案为视角

COA标签为正版操作系统的合法凭证。盗窃COA标签的行为不涉及侵犯著作权的问题,不构成侵犯著作权罪。盗窃COA标签的犯意不在于故意毁坏财物,不构成故意毁坏财物罪。COA标签载有一定的经济价值,其属性决定其可以成为盗窃罪的犯罪对象,因此,盗窃正版软件标签的行为应以盗窃罪论处。     

“使用盗窃”行为之定性分析

一般意义上，盗窃罪是指以非法占有为目的，秘密窃取他人财物的行为。但是随着财产类型的多元化，“使用盗窃”行为逐渐纳入我国刑法理论视野。但是由于其缺乏普通盗窃罪的非法占有目的，被认为不构成盗窃罪。面对我国使用盗窃行为不断增长的态势和其所产生的社会危害性，我国应该将使用盗窃行为入罪，设立使用盗窃罪，并配之相应的法定刑。     

警犬在盗窃公用电信设施案中的应用

警犬在打击和预防犯罪过程中发挥了积极的作用，特别在盗窃公用电信设施案中作用更为突出。警犬一般都有高级神经活动机能，有敏锐的嗅觉、听觉和视觉等感觉器官，具有凶猛性、灵活性和飞快的奔跑能力等警用素质，是公安机关执行任务的一种特殊工具。在盗窃公用电信设施案中，报警及时、出警迅速，警犬的使用有很好的时间条件，要充分利用警犬的特殊功能为公安工作服务。     

对盗窃信用卡并在ATM机上使用行为的司法认定

盗窃信用卡并在ATM机上使用的行为不应该一概以盗窃罪定罪，要根据其使用的不同手段具体情况具体分析。对盗窃信用卡后并不需要采取进一步的诈骗手段就可以获取卡上钱款的情形可定盗窃罪，对盗窃信用卡之后还积极通过猜配密码、非法获取、复制密码的手段并据此在ATM机上取款的行为，则认定为信用卡诈骗罪更为合理。     

论盗窃罪既遂标准的实践把握

盗窃罪既遂形态的认定是司法实践中最为复杂的问题,对此形态的准确把握极为艰难。盗窃罪的既遂标准与盗窃行为的对象、盗窃行为的手段、盗窃行为时的环境及条件均有密切关系。同时盗窃罪的故意和盗窃数额对本罪既遂也具有修正意义。     

刑事诉讼中重复追诉问题研究

大陆法系中的"一事不再理"原则与英美法系中的"禁止双重危险"原则既有共通之处,也有差异,联合国文件确立的"一事不再理"原则是二者的折中性表述。与两者均不相同的是,中国法以客观事实、有错必纠为理论基础,允许检控方和法院对同一被告人采取多次重复的追诉和审判,从而使被告人因同一行为而面临多次危险。应当对中国刑事诉讼中的重复追诉予以法律控制,有必要在调整我国《刑事诉讼法》的利益格局中,确立"一事不再理"原则,同时应改革法院做出证据不足的无罪判决后检察院可以重新起诉的规定和再审制度。     

利用ATM故障恶意取款案的法律性质辨析

Malicious withdrawal from ATM constitutes offence of theft and belongs to “theft from financial institutions”. In case of “extremely huge amount”, according to China’s Criminal Law, the minimum statutory penalty for the accused is life imprisonment, which is undoubtedly too severe. So far as judiciaries are concerned, reflection should be made with respect to the relevant legislative provisions. In handling individual cases, the wisest practice for judiciaries is to refer to the provision of clause 2 of article 63 of the Criminal Law, hence submitting them to the examination and approval by the Supreme Court for mitigation of penalties. Fu liqing, Ph.D graduate of Peking University (major in the science of criminal law), is now a lecturer at Law School of Renmin University of China. He once learned at Law School of Tokyo University of Japan (2004.10∼2006.9). His representative works are Make-up of the Rule of Law, Voice of the Rule of Law, Theory of the Subjective Illegal Elements—Evolving with the center of intention crime. Meanwhile, he has about 40 articles published in academic journals. His recent research is in the field of theoretic re-construction of the constitutive crime elements and the application of interpretation method on criminal law, etc.     

对盗窃数额在认定方面的一点思考

盗窃罪在我国属于常见多发的财产型犯罪。盗窃数额对盗窃罪的定罪与量刑具有关键的作用,立法上规定了“数额较大或者多次盗窃”,“数额巨大或者有其他严重情节”、“数额特别巨大或者有特别严重情节”及“有下列情形之一”几种情形作为定罪及量刑情节。因此正确的认定盗窃数额在司法实践中具有重要的意义。本文从一个小的方面来谈一下对盗窃数额的认定。