环境污染犯罪司法解释中抽象危险犯条款之批判  

A Critical Reflection of Abstract Dangerous Criminal Clauses in Criminal Judicial Interpretation of Environmental Pollution Cases

作　　者：王社坤[1] 胡玲玲[1] WANG Shekun HU Lingling(Law School, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院,北京100871

出　　处：《南京工业大学学报（社会科学版）》2016年第4期12-18,共7页Journal of Nanjing Tech University：Social Science Edition

摘　　要：最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合颁布的《关于办理环境污染刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《解释》)基本解决了污染环境罪"入罪难"的问题,但《解释》通过扩张解释引入抽象危险犯与《中华人民共和国刑法》第三百三十八条的结果犯模式相抵牾,有违罪刑法定原则。通过对《解释》生效以来近千份污染环境罪裁判文书的分析发现:司法实践中存在的选择性适用现象,使得生态法益未能得到充分保护;而对抽象危险犯条款的过度适用,也有悖刑法谦抑性原则。在环境犯罪领域引入抽象危险犯应当与我国的生态文明发展阶段、环境政策、刑事政策相协调,并对环境保护立法中的重刑主义倾向保持警惕。Chinese Supreme People＇s Court and Supreme People＇s Procuratorate issued the Criminal Judicial Interpretation of Cases of Environmental Pollution（ hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Judicial Interpretation）,in order to solve the problem of the lack of incrimination standards in juridical practice. The Criminal Judicial Interpretation brought in abstract dangerous criminal in crime of polluting environment,which creates conflicts between the Criminal Judicial Interpretation and Article 338 of the Criminal Law,contrary to the principle of legality. The empirical analysis of 886 copies of environmental criminal judgment documents reveals the selectivity of judicial application,which is detrimental to the protection of environmental legal interests. Besides,the Criminal Judicial Interpretation leads to the abuse of abstract dangerous criminal in practice,which is in contradiction to the principle of ultima ratio of penalty. Whether the legislature brings in abstract dangerous criminal in crime of polluting environment depends on conditions of ecological civilization,environmental policy and criminal techniques in current China,since the judicial practice warns against the doctrine of severe punishment.

关 键 词：污染环境罪 抽象危险犯 生态法益 批判 

分 类 号：D922.683[政治法律—环境与资源保护法学]