论文部分内容阅读
前不久,沈阳发生了一起抢劫、挟持人质案,在对犯罪分子抢劫后,为抗拒逮捕而挟持被害人的行为,是否单独定罪的问题,成为争论的焦点。案件事实是,1995年6月9日晚9时许,朱、李二犯窜至一公园内,持刀威逼一对恋人,抢劫人民币500余元。当二犯欲威逼二被害人进树丛中时,被公安巡逻人员发现,二犯持刀威逼挟持女被害人为人质欲逃跑,与公安人员对峙长达3小时之久。后公安人员与之周旋,将被害人解救出来,并抓获二犯。对本案的定罪问题,有两种不同的意见。第一种意见认为,犯罪分子抢劫后为抗拒逮捕,又挟持被害人的行为,是抢劫后的行为,应定为妨害公务罪。应将先前的抢劫罪与妨害公务罪二罪并罚。其理由是,
Not long ago, there was a case of a separate conviction in solitary robbery and hostage-taking in Shenyang. After the robbery of criminals, they held hostage-sufferers for resisting arrests and became the focus of controversy. The facts of the case: At 9 pm on June 9, 1995, Zhu and Li Er committed a crime to go to a park with knives to intimidate a pair of lovers and loot RMB 500 yuan. When the two criminals intimidated two victims into the trees, police patrol officers found that two prisoners forced the hostage-taking woman victims hostage-like escape, confrontation with the public security officers up to 3 hours long. After dealing with the public security officers, the victim was rescued and arrested two guilty. There are two different opinions on the conviction of this case. The first opinion is that criminals who rob a robbery to resist arrests and hold hostages behind the victims are the acts after the robbery and should be judged as obstruction of official duties. The previous crime of robbery and the crime of obstruction of public service crimes should be punished. The reason is that,