Analysis On The Case Of Environmental Pollution By Fan Et Al

The "Criminal Law Amendment(8)" adopted in 2011 revise the crime of major environmental pollution accidents as the crime of polluting the environment and further expand the scope of punishment,which is of great significance to the punishment of environmental crime.However,Article 338 of the amended Penal Code and the accompanying judicial interpretation do not express the fault form of the crime of polluting the environment,which leads to the debate on the Academics and the judicial practice.The cases of environmental pollution by Fan et al have controversy on the fault form and its judiciary is different,so this situation is reflected.About the fault form of the crime of polluting the environment,there are three views,are,negligence,deliberately said and double sin said.Negligence said follows the fault form of the crime of major environmental pollution accidents,and thinks the fault form can only be a fault;deliberately said improperly applies to the theory of objective extra factor,and thinks the fault form can only be intentional.These two views take the normative standards,ignore the importance of the facts,and improperly reduce the scope of punishment of the crime.They do not meet the purpose of crime norms,so they are not desirable.It is advisable to introduce double facts on the basis of normative theory,to adopt the double judgment standard of norms and facts.Double sin said is advisable to help to punish environmental crime.The double sin of this crime can be deliberately and negligently at the theoretical level,but a single form of sin that is still deliberately or mistaken in the judiciary.Based on this,in case one Fan and other two people's forms of guilt should be considered intentional;In case two Kan's fault form should be identified as fault;In case three Zhang and other two people's forms of guilt should be deemed to be intentional.The court for Fans' form of guilty identified as negligence,for the Kan's form of guilty as intentional.Obviously,they are not appropriate;And it is reasonable that the court for Zhang's guilty form identified as intentional.