污染环境罪的未遂

污染环境罪的未遂包括作为结果犯的未遂和作为结果加重犯的未遂。作为结果加重犯的未遂,是指对环境污染本身持故意,对于人身伤亡财产损失的加重结果持过失的污染环境罪未遂。司法实践中存在直接判决污染环境罪未遂的判例,也存在提及是否可以成立污染环境罪未遂的判例,但更多的是对成立污染环境罪未遂未予提及的判例。在刑事立法未及增设污染环境罪具体危险犯的情况下,对污染环境罪未遂的肯定无疑对于司法实践起到了指引作用。但污染环境罪抽象危险犯的功能是污染环境罪未遂所无法替代的。     

环境污染罪的违法性问题思考

从国外刑法发展的趋势看,附属刑法在对环境犯罪的确立和司法认定中具有重要价值。大陆法系犯罪论的违法性判断是将附属刑法从形式上和实质上融入法律秩序整体中进行考察的重要理论依据。在我国,由于缺乏大陆法系违法性范畴的价值判断,附属刑法的价值还没有真正确立。     

重大环境污染事故罪构成要件研究

现行刑法实施以来,有关重大环境污染事故罪犯罪的构成要件的争议一直未断,例如"明知故犯"、共同过失、环境污染行为与危害后果的因果关系、单位作为重大环境污染事故罪主体存在的问题、刑法是否应当设立该罪的危险犯以及相关的刑事政策等.厘清这些问题对惩治和预防重大环境污染事故罪的刑法理论与实践皆具有十分重要的意义.     

污染环境罪主客观要件问题研究——以《中华人民共和国刑法修正案（八）》为视角

污染环境罪是《中华人民共和国刑法修正案（八）》修正的罪名。本罪的主观方面包括故意和过失,严格责任在环境刑法中没有也不应有存在的余地。对于本罪共同犯罪形态中呈现出的各种样态应根据情况分别处理。本罪的客观方面包括违法前提、危害行为与危害结果三个要素。其中,对本罪行为与结果间的因果关系可引入因果关系推定原则加以认定,但其适用应受到限制。从应然意义上讲,应将本罪由结果犯改为危险犯。     

Overview of: “Crime Place and Pollution: Expanding Crime Reduction Options Through a Regulatory Approach”

Research Summary Crime reduction policy has focused almost exclusively on offenders. Recent studies and evaluations show that expanding our policy portfolio to include places may be highly productive. We show that there is considerable research showing that crime is concentrated at a relatively few locations, that high-crime places are stable, that changing places can reduce crime, that displacement is not only far from inevitable but also less likely than the diffusion of crime prevention benefits, and that owners of high-crime places can be held accountable for the criminogenic conditions of their locations. We link these findings to environmental policy, where environmental scientists, economists, and regulators have developed a broad set of regulatory options. The core of this article describes a portfolio of environmental policy instruments directly applicable to crime places. We also discuss major decisions local governments will need to make to implement various forms of regulation, and we list challenges that governments must anticipate in planning for such implementation. We argue that a regulatory approach to crime places has the potential to lower the cost to taxpayers of reducing crime by shifting costs from governments to the relatively few place owners whose actions create crime-facilitating conditions. Policy Implications Taking a regulatory approach to crime places substantially expands the crime policy options under consideration. Regulatory options may increase local governments’ effectiveness at reducing crime while reducing governments’ costs. This is because regulatory approaches have the potential to shift some portion of the financial burden for crime fighting to owners of criminogenic locations. Policy makers can select between means-based anticrime regulations that focus on how place owners manage their locations and ends-based regulations that focus on the number of crimes allowed at places. Both of these approaches contain several alternative regulatory instruments, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Experimenting with various regulatory instruments could lead to the development of a range of new crime reduction policies. In addition, a regulatory approach has implications for the funding of policy research. Means-based regulatory instruments require governments to develop evidence that the means they regulate have the desired impact on crime. Ends-based regulatory instruments shift this burden to the regulated places.     

污染环境犯罪因果关系证明实证分析

以污染环境犯罪一审判决书为样本,对该犯罪因果关系证明进行实证分析发现,这种证明往往依赖于环保行政机构的监测报告和数据以及行政鉴定机构的鉴定等证据材料。法官往往通过将污染环境的排放、倾倒、处置等污染原因行为与最新司法解释规定的污染损害后果相结合,进而对污染物质运作的因果关系进行判定和确认。实证研究发现的具体难题主要表现为:污染环境犯罪因果关系证明的证据空缺;证明责任的分配不合理与推定制度不完善;证明方法单一;环保监测数据、行政鉴定意见和专家辅助人在刑事诉讼中的应用不合理,以及法官的专业司法应对能力不足等。产生上述问题的原因主要是:污染环境犯罪因果关系的证明和认定错综复杂,相关刑事法规范中涉及因果关系证明及其认定的规则阙如,刑事司法具体应对措施缺少等。证明难题的应对方案包括:合理使用行政执法证据资源,通过对污染环境因果关系链条运行的对照分析来完善证据收集制度,改进和完善相关鉴定证据及环保监测报告在刑事诉讼中的使用,强调对逻辑推理、经验法则以及心证等证明方法的综合应用。     

环境污染犯罪中企业责任问题思考——以“新生态人”为视角

在刑事法律中对企业进行“新生态人”人性假设，将企业的环境刑事责任诉诸于环境保护政策的考量之中，直接或间接地将企业环境社会责任转化成一种环境刑法内部改造的动力，有利于刑事责任的认定和环境法律责任制度的建构。“新生态人”的刑事责任制度以“风险规制”理论为指导，保护和惩罚并举，加大了环境管理的监督力度，可以使环境刑法在解决企业生存发展与生态环境保护之矛盾上发挥巨大作用。     

新旧污染环境犯罪司法解释的适用

【裁判要旨】在旧的司法解释实施后、新的司法解释实施前,行为人实施非法排放、倾倒、处置危险废物一百吨以上的行为,从行为时已有相关司法解释的精神、兜底条款慎用原则及刑法谦抑性的要求来分析,不能认定为污染环境罪的后果特别严重,而应适用从旧兼从轻原则,按照处刑较轻的司法解释来定罪量刑。     

污染环境罪侵害法益的规范分析

自我国1997年《刑法》颁布实施以来,污染环境罪的侵害法益经过了一个范围逐步扩大和立场逐步转变的过程.1997年《刑法》实施至《刑法修正案(八)》颁布期间,污染环境罪的侵害法益是财产法益和人身法益,体现了人类中心主义的法益观;从《刑法修正案(八)》实施至2013年《环境污染解释》颁布,污染环境罪的侵害法益从逻辑上看虽然是环境法益,但理论上和实践中主要还是通过财产法益或人身法益得以体现.2013年《环境污染解释》的颁布更加突出了环境法益的地位,使得污染环境罪的法益向生态整体主义法益观迈进了一大步.     

新旧污染环境犯罪司法解释的适用

【裁判要旨】在旧的司法解释实施后、新的司法解释实施前,行为人实施非法排放、倾倒、处置危险废物一百吨以上的行为,从"行为时已有相关司法解释"的精神、兜底条款慎用原则及刑法谦抑性的要求来分析,不能认定为污染环境罪的后果特别严重,而应适用从旧兼从轻原则,按照处刑较轻的司法解释来定罪量刑。     

我国污染型环境犯罪因果关系证明方法之综合运用

污染型环境犯罪因果关系事实的证明较为困难,需要结合具体情况综合地运用不同的证明方法。传统的逻辑推理方法和经验法则在污染型环境犯罪因果关系基础事实的证明中是基础性的证明方法。有些污染型环境犯罪因果关系事实的证明则还需要适当运用推定方法,如疫学证明法和间接反证法。     

中德环境污染犯罪立法比较研究

环境污染犯罪是当今世界各国普遍关注的一种环境犯罪类型,德国在这方面的立法较为先进。通过比较中德环境污染犯罪的立法,可以为我国的立法完善带来启示。为了有效预防、惩治环境污染犯罪,我国有必要借鉴德国立法经验,在环境污染犯罪法律规定模式、保护法益、主客观成罪条件、证明方法及处罚等方面进行改革和完善。     

Comparative Study on the Legislation of Crime of Environmental Pollution between China and Germany

环境污染犯罪是当今世界各国普遍关注的一种环境犯罪类型,德国在这方面的立法较为先进.通过比较中德环境污染犯罪的立法,可以为我国的立法完善带来启示.为了有效预防、惩治环境污染犯罪,我国有必要借鉴德国立法经验,在环境污染犯罪法律规定模式、保护法益、主客观成罪条件、证明方法及处罚等方面进行改革和完善.     

重大环境污染事故罪的立法修改研究

刑法作为最后保障法应对惩治严重污染环境的行为发挥重要作用。我国1997年《刑法》规定的重大环境污染事故罪在犯罪对象、污染排放物范围以及成立犯罪的标准上有诸多缺陷,《中华人民共和国刑法修正案（八）》（以下简称《刑法修正案（八）》）对重大环境污染事故罪进行了较为全面的修改,总体上降低了犯罪门槛,对保护环境具有重大的意义,但该罪的法定刑仍存有较大缺陷,需要进一步完善。     

Exposure to Property Crime as a Consequence of Poverty

This paper investigates whether and why the poor are more exposed to property crime than are the non‐poor, despite the reasonable assumption that poor people lack or have little valuable property that can be stolen. If poor people are more exposed to property crime than those who are not poor, there are needs for explanations. The paper investigates two plausible reasons: the significance of the neighbourhood character and routine activities. The results in the paper indicates that poor people are more exposed to property crimes related to the residence, independent of neighbourhood character and routine activities, while exposure to property crimes related to vehicles depends more on the family situation and age than on poverty per se. When it comes to other kinds of property crime, poor people do not seem to be more exposed than do the nonpoor. That poor people are more exposed to property crime related to their residence, and that there are problem areas explaining why, is worrisome. Those who are poor are often vulnerable to other social problems that tend to exclude them from ordinary living patterns. To find out the relation between poverty and exposure to property crimes related to residence is of importance for crime prevention and probably an important step to prevent those who are poor from being further excluded from society.