【摘要】：在污染環(huán)境罪確立之前，“我國環(huán)境污染犯罪的判例在刑事司法中極為少見，在絕大多數(shù)地方法院均呈現(xiàn)‘零判決’現(xiàn)象�！币环矫骘@示出重大環(huán)境污染事故罪的“曲高和寡”，另一方面則表明我國在打擊污染環(huán)境犯罪、保護(hù)環(huán)境法益方面，刑事手段可謂捉襟見肘。2011年5月1日起頒行的《刑法修正案（八）》對原重大環(huán)境污染事故罪的成罪條件進(jìn)行修訂，修訂后實際上設(shè)立了污染環(huán)境罪。這一修訂讓刑法手段作為解決污染環(huán)境問題的手段成為可能。2013年6月19日起，《最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院關(guān)于辦理環(huán)境污染刑事案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》施行，該《解釋》明確了污染環(huán)境罪的入罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。自該《解釋》頒行以來，各地涌現(xiàn)出大量污染環(huán)境罪判例。這一現(xiàn)象充分表明刑法手段已經(jīng)成為解決污染環(huán)境問題的手段，刑法在對污染環(huán)境犯罪的治理上邁出了堅實的第一步。但該罪在適用過程中的表現(xiàn)、效果需要評估，不明晰之處需要明確，抵牾之處需要理順，欠缺之處需要彌補。筆者認(rèn)為，刑罰適用情況能較好地反映上述要點，故選取污染環(huán)境罪判例作為研究對象，對污染環(huán)境罪刑罰適用情況進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計研究。 本文基于上述目的及研究思路，，對現(xiàn)階段污染環(huán)境罪判例中自由刑、宣告緩刑制度、罰金刑等適用之具體表現(xiàn)、判定依據(jù)之犯罪情節(jié)進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計，對于單位犯罪中的刑罰適用情況進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計。 上述統(tǒng)計主要反映出以下特點：污染環(huán)境罪入罪數(shù)量大量增加、自由刑以三年以下有期徒刑為主、宣告緩刑及禁業(yè)刑適用比例較低、罰金刑數(shù)額較為集中、罰金刑的適用情況與自由刑的適用情況總體相當(dāng)?shù)⒎峭耆珜?yīng)、罰金刑的裁判依據(jù)之犯罪人違法獲利情節(jié)存在認(rèn)定不當(dāng)?shù)那樾�、單位犯罪中對于單位和直接�?zé)任人都判處了罰金、直接責(zé)任人的罰金數(shù)額大都遠(yuǎn)低于單位罰金數(shù)額等。 關(guān)于量刑工作的改進(jìn)，本文重點提出三項建議：一、違反廢物、廢水登記制度、處理登記制度的行為應(yīng)作為量刑情節(jié)。二、增加非監(jiān)禁刑適用比例，用更恰當(dāng)?shù)�、對社會造成最小�?fù)擔(dān)的方式來實現(xiàn)刑罰的意義，同時避免弱化對犯罪人的刑事處罰。三、將污染環(huán)境所獲利益通過沒收違法所得制度解決，而非作為罰金刑的量刑情節(jié)。
[Abstract]:Before the establishment of environmental pollution crime, "the precedent of environmental pollution crime in our country is very rare in criminal justice, and the phenomenon of 'zero judgment' appears in most local courts." On the one hand, it shows that the crime of major environmental pollution accidents is "high and low"; on the other hand, it shows that our country is fighting environmental pollution crimes and protecting the interests of environmental law. The criminal means can be described as limited. The Criminal Law Amendment (8) issued on May 1, 2011 revised the crime conditions of the original major environmental pollution accident crime, and actually established the pollution environment crime after the revision. This amendment makes possible the use of criminal law as a means to solve the problem of environmental pollution. From June 19, 2013, the interpretation of the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate on some issues applicable to the law in handling criminal cases of environmental pollution was put into effect. The explanation clarifies the standard of incrimination for the crime of polluting the environment. Since the enactment of the interpretation, a large number of environmental pollution cases have emerged. This phenomenon fully shows that the means of criminal law has become the means to solve the problem of environmental pollution, and the criminal law has taken a solid first step in the treatment of the crime of polluting the environment. However, the performance of the crime in the process of application, the effect needs to be evaluated, the lack of clarity needs to be clear, the contradiction needs to be straightened out, and the deficiency needs to be remedied. The author believes that the application of penalty can better reflect the above points, so the case of environmental pollution crime is selected as the research object, and the application of penalty for environmental pollution crime is studied statistically. Based on the above purpose and research ideas, this paper makes statistics on the application of free punishment, proclamation of probation system, fine penalty and so on in the case of environmental pollution crime at the present stage, and makes statistics on the circumstances of the crime on which it is based. Statistics on the application of penalties in unit crime. The above statistics mainly reflect the following characteristics: the number of convictions for environmental pollution crimes has increased substantially, the majority of free sentences are fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, the proportion of probation and proscription sentences is relatively low, and the amount of fines is relatively concentrated. The application of the fine is equal to the application of the free punishment on the whole, but it is not completely corresponding, and the circumstances on which the criminal on whom the fine is based are found to be improper in the circumstances of making profits in violation of the law, In the unit crime, both the unit and the direct responsible person have been fined, and the amount of the fine of the direct responsible person is much lower than the amount of the unit fine and so on. As to the improvement of sentencing, this paper puts forward three suggestions: first, the behavior of violating the registration system of waste and wastewater and treating the registration system should be taken as the circumstances of sentencing. Second, increase the applicable proportion of non-custodial punishment, and realize the meaning of punishment in a more appropriate way that causes the least burden to the society, and avoid weakening the criminal punishment of the offender at the same time. Third, the interests gained by polluting the environment should be solved through the confiscation of illegal income system, not as the sentencing circumstances of the fine.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.36

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 張建軍;;我國暫緩判決制度的完善[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年01期

2 焦艷鵬;;我國環(huán)境污染刑事判決闕如的成因與反思——基于相關(guān)資料的統(tǒng)計分析[J];法學(xué);2013年06期

3 卜安淳;從犯罪構(gòu)成看犯罪防控(下)[J];福建公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報.社會公共安全研究;2000年06期

4 李潔;罰金刑之?dāng)?shù)額規(guī)定研究[J];吉林大學(xué)社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2002年01期

本文編號：2184904