Study On The Subjective Crime Of Environmental Pollution

Currently,there are 3 mainstream opinions on the definition of subjective environment contamination crime. “Negligence” party argues that environment contamination crime can only be committed out of negligence on following basis: 1) environment contamination crime derives from major environmental pollution accidents and terms governing its offence form remain intact in article 338, Criminal Law of the P.R.C.; 2) statutory sentence of environment contamination crime is classified in that of criminal negligence; and 3) environment contamination crime should be defined as criminal negligence in risk-context society. While those stand for “Deliberation” believe that environment contamination crime can only be interpreted as willful crime. And its main argumentation is: 1) the offence form of environment contamination crime has not be explicitly defined by Criminal Law and yet no related willful crimes have be listed specifically; 2) environment contamination crime can be defined as willful crime literally; 3) based on system explanation principle, environment contamination crime can only be concluded as willful crime. And “Compound” group advocates that either “Negligence” or “Deliberation” cannot fully interpret environment contamination crime due to lacking specific definition on its offence form in article 338, Criminal Law of the P.R.C.. However, sticking to “Negligence” would leave those who committed “Deliration” crimes unpunished and vice versa, which would definitely undermine environmental law interest.Though it is generally acknowledged that offence form of environment contamination crime is defined by norm of crime, yet no corresponding norm can be utilized currently. According to article 14 and 15, Criminal Law of the P.R.C., the offence form should be defined in accordance to “harmful consequences to society”. Therefore, it is reasonable to confirm the offence form of environment contamination crime by its consequence, which has been normalized and reflects fact. On the basis of crime norm, a precise offence form can be determined by introducing the case facts as another bench of mark. Consequently, when it comes to mala in se, norm of criminal law can be treated as the bench mark of offence form because criminal responsibility varies from offence forms. As for statutory offense, a “norm-fact” double perspective is more reliable where offence form has little to do with criminal responsibility.Once “norm-fact” regulation set up, it is obvious that “Single crime”(“Negligence” or “Deliberation”) or even “Compound guilty” cannot hold on its feet. “Single crime” can neither be fully supported by article 338, nor meet current requirement of environment contamination law, which would probably leave some specific crime concerning environment contamination. Though “Compound guilty” is reasonable to some extent, it would go definitely against legislative spirit which separates willful crime and criminal negligence rigidly. Therefore, we try to promote “Alternative crime” which explains that the offence form of environmental pollution crime can be “Negligence” or “Deliberation” separately but not simultaneously. And offence form definition can only be conducted from the case facts.