Study On Controversies In The Judicial Application Of The Crime Of Environmental Pollution

In the context that “guarding green mountains and building beautiful China” has become background of the times,Amendment(VIII)to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China made major revision to “the Crime of Major Environmental Pollution Accident” and renamed it as “the Crime of Environmental Pollution” in order to further increase the crackdown on this kind of crimes.Subsequently,for the purpose of development of form and meet the needs of practice,Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Environmental Pollution in 2013 and 2016,and the Summary of Minutes of the Symposium on the Trial of Cases Concerning Environmental Pollution in 2019 have been issued one after another,and the judicial department's tolerance and punishment for the crime of environmental pollution has also undergone fundamental changes.However,in view of the particularity of this crime itself and the complexity of relevant legal provisions,it is highly controversial in the identification of legal interests,behavioral structures,criminal forms,and forms of crimes.This article takes the empirical situation of the crime of polluting the environment as the entry point,try to clarify and solve the disputes and problems of this crime in judicial application and it is divided into four parts:The first part mainly introduces the judicial application of the crime ofenvironmental pollution,and refines the controversial part in identification of it on the basis of empirical investigation.The legal interests under this crime is not clear,and the concept of legal interests in environment is not widely recognized.Among the1803 cases which are studied,in terms of the Article 1in Interpretation 16,the most frequency application is the second to fifth items,with a total proportion of 96.7%;The connotations and boundaries of the concepts such as “behavioral offense” and“result offense” and “actual damage offense” are not clear,and different courts have different understandings of the types of behavioral structures with respect to this crime.Formal identification of this crime is a difficult problem,and it is inclined to be regarded as deliberate crime in judicial practice.The second part focuses on clarifying the legal interests protected by the crime of environmental pollution and this issue is also a prerequisite for cracking the remaining difficult problems.From a macro perspective,the concept of pure anthropocentrism and pure ecological centralism are contrary to the current legal provisions and the judicial status quo,but the rational core of ecological anthropocentrism(eclecticism)is worthy of advocacy.From the micro level,in terms of legal interests,although the fundamental purpose of protecting the environment is to protect the traditional human center,however,the environmental legal interests under protecting the environment may not be directly reduced to individual interests or group interests;It is not advisable to adhere to the traditional view that only the personal legal interests or the abstract social management order is the object of protection of the crime.Environmental legal interests are the direct legal interests of this crime,as long as they do not conflict with the human center's legal interests,they must be protected independently by criminal law.The conviction and punishment for the crime of placing dangerous substances in the environmental pollution case should be quite cautious.The third part focuses on the behavioral structure of the crime of environmental pollution.The concept of behavioral offence,consequential offence and consequential offence cannot accurately and comprehensively characterize the structure of this crime.“Severely polluted environment” should be understood as “a seriousenvironmental pollution situation”,that is,this crime is a plot crime;Given that the particularity of this crime itself and the relevant legal provisions,there are overlaps between this crime is established and completed,this means there is no criminal forms other than completed.To take a step back,even if there is room for acknowledging the crime of environmental pollution has not been completed,acts that have not yet begun may not be included in the scope of this crime.The fourth part starts from the judgment basis of sin and clearly defines the sinful form of the crime of environmental pollution.“Lost Negligence” does not apply the latest environmental law benefits to the psychological content of sin judgment,and it is untenable at both theoretical and practical levels.“Deliberately speaking”strictly follows the principle of legality of a crime,and should be the proper explanation of the form of this crime in the current context;The legislative model of“mixed sin” has certain rationality under the dimension of due interpretation.The intentional determination of this crime is presumptive and the traditional “result standard” should be relaxed;Distinguishing intentionality and negligence will directly relate to the degree of standard to the perpetrator,so this principle must be adhered to.“obscure sin” and “exception of sin” is not advisable.