法学论文劫持被害人后逼迫其向第三人索要财物定性研究.doc

劫持被害人后逼迫其向第三人索要财物定性研究 【中文摘要】近年来,随着贫富差距的扩大、法律知识的普及,绑架罪和抢劫罪出现犯罪分子反侦察意识越来越强,犯罪涉及的金额越来越大的特点。司法机关办案中,时常遇到一类反映这种特点的犯罪行为:犯罪分子绑架被害人后逼迫被害人向第三人索要财物。由于这类犯罪行为不直接以被害人的人身安全胁迫第三人交付财物,犯罪手段具有较高的隐蔽性,并且逼迫被害人以各种借口向第三人筹集财物,突破了抢劫罪仅限劫取被害人身上当场所有的财物的限制,能非法侵占的财物。在不能达到自己的非法情况下,还可能随时进一步采取公开控制被害人人身自由的事实,胁迫第三人交付财物,因此具有严重的社会危害性。由于这类犯罪行为既不完全符合典型的绑架罪行为模式,也不完全符合抢劫罪“当时、当场占有财物”的特点,而我国刑法对财产型绑架罪行为模式的规定十分模糊,对这类犯罪行为的定性,给司法机关带来了极大的困惑。本文以李某案为例,通过对绑架罪客体、既遂标准以及抢劫罪当场性特点的不同学说进行研究比较,分析探讨,旨在得出符合法律精神的结论,以期为司法机关在处理此类案件时提供有益建议。本文除引言外,全文共分为三个部分:第一部分是案例的基本情况。本部分通过对李某拘禁被害人后逼迫其向第三人索要财物一案的案由、案情介绍和公诉机关在讨论案件中对案件的定性争议引出本案的争议焦点,即绑架罪的构成是否以侵害第三人自决权为必要,抢劫罪劫取财物的“当场”外延界限标准是什么。第二部分是争议焦点的理论分析。绑架罪方面,目前刑法学界对绑架罪主观上“以勒索为”,客观上“绑架他人”的法条理解,主要有四种学说:单一客体单一行为说、复杂客体单一行为说、单一客体复合行为说、复杂客体复合行为说。结合司法机关办案的认知规律,通过比较分析,笔者认为,绑架罪侵害的是复杂客体,客观行为是复合行为,绑架罪的构成须以侵害第三人自决权为必要。抢劫罪方面,目前我国刑法学界对抢劫罪劫取财物的当场性主要有三种学说:法条语义说、扩张说、否定说。通过比较分析,笔者认为,劫取财物当场性的理解不必局限于司法解释限定的“同一时间、同一地点”,只要被害人处于犯罪嫌疑人暴力控制下而不能反抗,手段行为和行为具有因果关系便符合劫取财物的当场性要求。第三部分是李某行为的定性意见及刑事立法建议。结合以上理论分析,从主观故意、侵犯的客体、当场性及危害性等方面对本案李某的行为作出定性意见,并结合本案特点,对司法机关处理类似案件及将来刑事立法提出一些建议。 【英文摘要】In recent years, with the expanding gap between rich and poor and popularization of legal knowledge, reconnaissance consciousness of criminals anti of kidnapping and robbery appear more and more strong. The amount of money trapped in crime is larger and larger. The judicial authorities who are handling this kind of cases often meet characteristics of the crime of kidnapping. Criminals force victim to get money from a third person. Because this kind of crime does not directly to the victim’s personal safety, it has high concealment . Criminals force victim to ask a third person to raise property with many kinds of excuses, which is different from the same kind of crime before. I n this way criminals can get more property than before.If they can not reach their illegal purpose cases, they will take further measure to control the personal freedom of victim to get more money. So this kind of crimine is harmful.Because this kind of crime is the different from typical kidnapping, and it do not include typical characteristics of typical robbery. Provisions of Our country criminal law on the crime of kidnapping are fuzzy, this brings a lot of confusion to judicial organ. I will set Mr Li’s case as an example.With the comparison and study on different theories on the object and accomplishment standards of kidnapping and robbery, we can get the right conclusion which conform to the legal spirit to provides useful advice to judicial organs in the treatment of this kind of case. This article can be divided into three parts:The first part contain the basic situation of the case. In this part,we will set Mr Li as a example to introduce the cause of the case and the content of the case to discuss meaning of the case which can be Controversy over the case. We will know whether infringing upon the third person with self-determination is nessarily. Which is necessary goods about “on the spot” in robbery hook .The second part is the central issue of theoretical analysis. there are four different kinds of understanding theory on sentence of “for the purpose of subjective and objective” about kidnapping : a single object and single behavior theory, complex object and a single object for the composite behavior theory, complex object and composite behavior theory. Combining with judicial organs of handling cognitive law I thinks kidnapping infringement is complicated, in which the objective behavior is composite behavior. So the composition of the kidnapping by infringing upon the thir