本文關(guān)鍵詞：環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪的認(rèn)定與完善　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪 司法認(rèn)定 缺陷 完善

【摘要】：1997年《刑法》在第408條新增加了環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪，與之配套的司法解釋也相繼出臺(tái)，最高人民檢察院于1999年、2001年、2005年、最高人民法院于2006年在相關(guān)司法解釋中對(duì)本罪的立案或定罪條件作出了規(guī)定。2013年，最高人民檢察院和最高人民法院還聯(lián)合出臺(tái)了《關(guān)于辦理環(huán)境污染刑事案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》，環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職刑事問(wèn)責(zé)體系基本建立。但即便在環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職刑事問(wèn)責(zé)體系基本建立的情況下，環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪的司法適用中仍舊出現(xiàn)許多爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題，一方面是司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)本罪的認(rèn)定，控辯雙方或者司法機(jī)關(guān)內(nèi)部存在較大的爭(zhēng)議；另一方面是民眾對(duì)環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職人員所處刑罰過(guò)輕的不滿，司法判決中普遍存在量刑畸輕的問(wèn)題。這些問(wèn)題折射出了環(huán)境監(jiān)管刑事立法和司法解釋的不足，折射出了理論上對(duì)環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪的研究還不能適應(yīng)實(shí)踐的需要，因而，對(duì)本罪相關(guān)問(wèn)題作出分析和研究十分必要。本文結(jié)合環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪司法適用概況，對(duì)環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪司法認(rèn)定中的難點(diǎn)和爭(zhēng)議進(jìn)行探討，通過(guò)對(duì)嚴(yán)重不負(fù)責(zé)任、因果關(guān)系、主體、罪過(guò)、法條競(jìng)合等相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題的分析，從而為司法實(shí)踐中正確認(rèn)定本罪提供參考；通過(guò)對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中本罪入罪少、量刑輕問(wèn)題的分析，探尋其背后的立法以及司法解釋的缺陷，從而為完善刑事立法和司法解釋提供一些參考意見。本文具體分為以下三個(gè)部分： 第一部分是環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪概述，主要介紹了環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪的立法沿革（包括司法解釋）和本罪司法適用概況，引出了本罪司法認(rèn)定的爭(zhēng)議以及司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的入罪少、量刑輕的問(wèn)題。 第二部分是環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪的司法認(rèn)定，首先論述了“嚴(yán)重不負(fù)責(zé)任”的爭(zhēng)議，進(jìn)而對(duì)“嚴(yán)重不負(fù)責(zé)任”進(jìn)行了界定，對(duì)本罪失職行為與工作失誤進(jìn)行區(qū)分；其次論述了本罪因果關(guān)系的認(rèn)定，提出仍應(yīng)當(dāng)用相當(dāng)因果關(guān)系來(lái)界定本罪的因果關(guān)系；第三，論述了本罪主體只能是分管環(huán)境監(jiān)管的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)和具體負(fù)責(zé)環(huán)境監(jiān)管工作的普通工作人員；第四，論述了本罪罪過(guò)只能是過(guò)失，，并對(duì)注意義務(wù)的來(lái)源進(jìn)行解讀；第五，論述了本罪與玩忽職守罪法條競(jìng)合關(guān)系下，只能是特別法優(yōu)先適用而不能適用重法優(yōu)先；第六，論述了受賄后瀆職的定性。 第三部分是環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪的完善，首先論述了司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)本罪入罪少、量刑輕的原因，引出本罪刑事立法和司法解釋的缺陷；其次是對(duì)刑事立法的完善，建議將環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪由實(shí)害犯改為危險(xiǎn)犯，降低本罪的入罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；建議增設(shè)一檔法定刑，對(duì)失職導(dǎo)致特別重大人身傷亡后果的，處三年以上七年以下有期徒刑。最后是對(duì)司法解釋的完善，建議司法解釋宜規(guī)定兜底條款，給法官一定的自由裁量權(quán)，以便將嚴(yán)重破壞環(huán)境生態(tài)功能或?qū)?lái)會(huì)發(fā)生重大損失情形納入犯罪圈。
[Abstract]:In 1997, the Criminal Law added the crime of dereliction of duty of environmental supervision in Article 408, and the corresponding judicial interpretation was introduced one after another. The Supreme people's Procuratorate issued the crime of dereliction of duty in 1999, 2001, 2001. On 2006, the Supreme people's Court stipulated the conditions for filing or convicting this crime in the relevant judicial interpretation. 2013. The Supreme people's Procuratorate and the Supreme people's Court also jointly issued the interpretation of certain issues concerning the Law applicable to handling Criminal cases of Environmental pollution. The criminal accountability system of environmental supervision dereliction of duty is basically established. However, even if the criminal accountability system of environmental supervision dereliction of duty is basically established, there are still many controversial issues in the judicial application of environmental oversight dereliction of duty. On the one hand, in judicial practice, there is a great dispute between the prosecution and defense parties or the judicial organs. On the other hand, the public is dissatisfied with the light punishment imposed by the dereliction of duty of environmental supervision, and the problem of abnormally light sentencing exists in the judicial decision. These problems reflect the insufficiency of the criminal legislation and judicial interpretation of environmental supervision. It reflects that the theoretical study on the crime of environmental oversight dereliction of duty can not meet the needs of practice, therefore, it is necessary to make analysis and research on the related issues of this crime. This paper combines the judicial application of the crime of environmental oversight dereliction of duty. This paper discusses the difficulties and disputes in the judicial cognizance of environmental oversight dereliction of duty, through the analysis of serious irresponsibility, causality, subject, sin, competing of laws and so on. In order to correctly identify this crime in judicial practice to provide a reference; Through the analysis of the problem of less conviction and light sentencing in judicial practice, the defects of legislation and judicial interpretation are explored. So as to improve the criminal legislation and judicial interpretation to provide some reference. This article is specifically divided into the following three parts: The first part is an overview of the crime of environmental oversight dereliction of duty, mainly introduces the legislative evolution (including judicial interpretation) and the judicial application of the crime. It leads to the dispute of judicial cognizance of this crime and the problem of less conviction and light sentencing in judicial practice. The second part is the judicial cognizance of the crime of environmental supervision dereliction of duty. Firstly, it discusses the dispute of "serious irresponsibility", and then defines "serious irresponsibility", and distinguishes the negligence of duty from the mistake of work. Secondly, it discusses the cognizance of the causality of this crime, and puts forward that the causality of this crime should still be defined by the equivalent causality. Thirdly, it discusses that the subject of this crime can only be the leaders in charge of environmental supervision and the ordinary staff who are in charge of the work of environmental supervision. 4th, discusses that the crime can only be fault, and the source of the duty of care to interpret; 5th, discussed this crime and dereliction of duty law article concurrence relations, can only be the special law first applies but cannot apply the heavy law priority; 6th, discussed the nature of malfeasance after bribery. The third part is the improvement of the crime of dereliction of duty of environmental supervision. Firstly, it discusses the reasons of the crime being less in judicial practice, and leads to the defects of the criminal legislation and judicial interpretation of the crime. The second is the perfection of criminal legislation, and it is suggested that the crime of environmental supervision dereliction of duty should be changed from the crime of actual injury to the crime of danger, so as to reduce the standard of incrimination of this crime. It is suggested that an additional legal punishment should be added, if the consequences of dereliction of duty result in serious personal injury or injury, the sentence shall be imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than seven years. Finally, it is the perfection of judicial interpretation. The judge is given discretion to bring serious damage to the ecological function of the environment or serious loss in the future into the criminal circle.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 彭鳳蓮;;監(jiān)督過(guò)失責(zé)任論[J];法學(xué)家;2004年06期

2 張明楷;;法條競(jìng)合中特別關(guān)系的確定與處理[J];法學(xué)家;2011年01期

3 胡顯偉;唐琳琳;;對(duì)環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪的修正思考[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年12期

4 李啟家,唐忠輝;從“環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職第一案”看我國(guó)環(huán)境法治的缺陷[J];河北法學(xué);2004年12期

5 易益典;;論監(jiān)督過(guò)失理論的刑法適用[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期

6 宋海鷗;樸光洙;秦紀(jì)祥;;如何認(rèn)定環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪?[J];環(huán)境保護(hù);2009年23期

7 馬品懿;王政;;環(huán)境監(jiān)管失職罪的正確認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)環(huán)境管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

8 楊楠;陳廣計(jì);;瀆職侵權(quán)職務(wù)犯罪因果關(guān)系在定罪量刑中的作用研究[J];河南廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2012年01期

9 杜琪;;環(huán)境領(lǐng)域公務(wù)員監(jiān)督過(guò)失責(zé)任研究[J];江淮論壇;2012年01期

10 周光權(quán);結(jié)果假定發(fā)生與過(guò)失犯——履行注意義務(wù)損害仍可能發(fā)生時(shí)的歸責(zé)[J];法學(xué)研究;2005年02期

本文編號(hào)：1433318