论入户抢劫-毕业论文.doc

摘  要 “入户抢劫”的认定是司法实践中的一个难点问题，有必要进行深入探讨。 刑法之所以对“入户抢劫”配置了较重的法定刑，是因为：“入户抢劫”侵犯 了三重客体，危害性更大；“入户抢劫”体现了犯罪分子更大的主观恶性；“入户 抢劫” 造成了更大的社会恐慌。 “户”的内涵应从“供他人家庭生活”和“与外界隔离”两个本质特征去把 握，将其与“室”进行区分；“入户”的目的应具有非法性，但不限于“为实施抢 劫行为”，只要具有犯罪的意图即可；“抢劫”中的暴力或者胁迫应当严格限制在 户内；抢劫行为的指向对象不限于户主，对户内的其他人实施抢劫实质上也侵犯 到公民的居住安全，也应当以“入户抢劫”论处。 对于转化型“入户抢劫”的认定，除了入户盗窃以外，入户抢夺、入户诈骗 等犯罪行为，只要符合为窝藏赃物、抗拒抓捕或者毁灭罪证而当场使用暴力或者 以暴力相威胁的条件，都可以转化为“入户抢劫”。 “入户抢劫”作为情节加重犯也存在未遂，应以是否取得财物作为“入户抢 劫”既遂与未遂的区分标准。 如果部分共犯具有中止犯罪的意图并有效地切断了自己的先前行为与共同犯 罪整体行为的有机联系，则成立犯罪中止，而其他未中止犯罪的共犯则可能出现 犯罪预备、既遂、未遂等不同犯罪形态。 关键词：立法意图；入户抢劫；“转化型抢劫” I ABSTRACT The cognizance of “household robbery” is a difficult problem in the judicial practice. This essay tries to explore the interpretation and judicial cognizance towards the “household robbery” with the help of judicial practice and relevant theoretical research achievements. The criminal law makes heavy punishment for the “household robbery” because it reflects the severe subjective evilness of the criminals, it infringes the tripartite objects with great harmful effects, and it causes more social panic. We should master the connotation of “household” from the two essential features, “a place for family living and separating from the outside”. The purposes for entering the house should be illegal and with criminal intents, no need to confine in the action of robbery. The violence and threat in the robbery should strictly be limited in the indoors. The objects in the robbery not only refer to the householder, but also the other people indoors. It threats citizens’ dwelling safety and should be punished as the “household robbery” All the actions of “household looting”, “household bilk”, etc. except the burglary, with the conditions of harboring booties, resisting arrest, and destroying evidence with extempore violence or violent threat can be transformed into “household robbery”. The criminals with aggravated circumstances also might not accomplish their crime. Acquiring the booties or not should be the standard to div