污染环境罪罪过形式研究  

Study on the Offences Concerning Environmental Pollution Crime

作　　者：申伟[1] 彭迎育 SHEN Wei;PENG Yingyu(Law School,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou 730000,Gansu,China)

机构地区：[1]兰州大学法学院,甘肃兰州730000

出　　处：《中国石油大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第4期92-99,共8页Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Social Sciences)

基　　金：甘肃省人民检察院检察理论研究课题;四川省暨泸州市“社会治理创新研究中心”资助课题(SHZLZD2105)。

摘　　要：2011年,《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(八)》将“重大环境污染事故罪”修改为“污染环境罪”,但立法者并未对该罪的罪过形式进行明确,理论界对此一直争论不休,主要有故意说、过失说、混合说三种观点。与之相应,司法实务中对该罪的罪过形式究竟是故意还是过失这一问题则要么避而不提,要么各持己见、歧见纷呈。经研究发现,过失说不仅不能从现行《中华人民共和国刑法》中找到文理依据,而且也不符合风险社会中污染环境罪新型法益保护之要求,因此污染环境罪的主观罪过形式不是也不应当是过失。相应地,认为污染环境罪的罪过形式是混合罪过的说法也站不住脚。无论是基于现行《中华人民共和国刑法》的条文,还是从污染环境罪在风险社会语境下所承载的法益保护需求来看,污染环境罪的主观罪过都应当确定为故意。The Eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China published in 2011 has revised"the crime of major environmental pollution accident"as"the crime of environmental pollution".However,legislators did not specify the offences with regard to the criminal activities,triggering an incessant debate among the academic circles with three defining views:intentional pollution,pollution caused by negligence and the blended type.With regard to the judgment practice,offences either intentional or negligent are seldom mentioned or divided as they are.Research has found that the negligence"theory"is neither well founded in accordance with the current Criminal Law nor accord with the new regulations of protecting the legal interests set by the"Environmental Pollution Crime".Therefore,the environmental pollution offence of this kind is not and should not be negligence.Similarly,the view that pollution offences are of blended type is untenable either.The purposeful environmental pollution crime can be specified as intentional whether in accordance with the provisions of the current Criminal Law or in terms of the regulations of protecting the legal interests in the"risk society"stipulated by"the Environmental Pollution Crime".

关 键 词：污染环境罪 主观罪过 风险社会 生态学的人类中心法益 

分 类 号：D924.36[政治法律—刑法学]