Study On Judicial Application Of Environmental Pollution Crime

With the increasing ozone hole,global warming,depletion of the world’s resources,the extinction of animal and plant populations,and the problems brought about by the industrialization of human beings and fishing,the clock has been alarmed all the time,and the environment has become an inevitable challenge for all countries.China is also accompanied by increasingly serious environmental problems in economic and industrial development.It not only becomes one of the main factors restricting economic and social development,but also endangers the health of our citizens.The Criminal Law Amendment(Ⅷ)only amended the means of pollution of environmental behavior and the consequences of damage caused by Article 383,but there was no revision of the statutory penalty range,resulting in the legal benefit of the crime of environmental pollution.The dispute over subjective sin and harmful consequences has never ended.Therefore in order to more effectively control the environment,increase the cost of illegal activities,and enhance environmental awareness,it is necessary to conduct further research on the crime of environmental pollution.This paper mainly applies empirical analysis and case analysis to analyze the reasons for the difficulty in applying environmental crimes in judicial practice.On the basis of the definition of the crime of polluting the environment,the criteria for the crime of polluting the environment and the crime of placing dangerous substances are proposed.In addition to the conclusion,this article consists of five parts.The first part is the problem of the crime of environmental pollution in the practical application.Through the analysis and comparison of the cases from the referee paper network,it is found that this crime has different opinions and opinions on subjective crimes,legal benefits and damage consequences in judicial practice.In the boundary between the crime of polluting the environment and the crime of placing dangerous substances,there are also conflicts as the guiding case of the Supreme People’s Court,“Yancheng Water Pollution Case"and“Fan Aidong,Wang Shenghua,Cai Jun Pollution Environment Case".The second part is the legal interest in the crime of environmental pollution.Starting from various existing legal and beneficial theories,by comparing different legal and beneficial theories,the simple "human legal benefits”and"environmental legal benefits" are not in line with China’s legal provisions.According to the chapters on environmental pollution crimes,the development trend of environmental protection laws in environmentally-friendly countries,and better governance environment,the legal benefits of China’s environmental pollution crimes should be adhered to in the ecological center of human rights.The third part is that the crime of polluting the environment has been subject to crime.There are different views in the academic circles on negligent,"deliberately speaking”,“double sin”and“strict liability theory”.This article can’t explain the problem of accomplice in"too-speaking”."Deliberately saying”will make the scope of punishment smaller and“double sin”and "strict liability theory"are not in line with the provisions of China’s current criminal law,and the subjective crime of environmental crime should be considered Apply "Choose Sin".The fourth part is the harmful consequences of the crime of polluting the environment.Firstly,it discusses three definitions of the“dangerous pollution of the environment" by the scholars on the harmful consequences of this crime:the results of the actual harm,the danger of the illegal behavior to the legal interest,and the three different understandings of the two.This paper argues that the definition of the consequences of the hazard should be defined as a special dangerous state,which helps to prevent serious environmental pollution,but the violation of the provisions of the dangerous criminals should not be excluded from the crime.The fifth part puts forward the criteria for the crime of environmental pollution and the crime of placing dangerous substances.First,on the basis of excluding the polluting environmental behaviors that do not endanger public safety,it is mainly the human legal benefits or the environmental law benefits that distinguish between the main legal interests and the environmental law benefits through the“primary legal benefits"and“secondary legal benefits”conviction.Secondly,in the case that it is difficult to distinguish the main legal interests,the long-term gradual discharge behavior is excluded from the crime of placing dangerous substances;once again,the place of placement and the role of the media are the main factors for distinguishing the two crimes.The human settlements are relatively close,and the behaviors with less environmental media are guilty of the crime of placing dangerous substances;the behavior of placing the place away from the human settlements and having a greater role in environmental media violates the crime of polluting the environment.Finally,through the legal benefits of direct infringement,the illegal act directly infringes upon the human legal interests constitutes the crime of placing dangerous substances,and the illegal acts directly infringe the environmental law benefits constitute the crime of polluting the environment.Therefore,it is better to apply the crime of polluting the environment in practice,reduce the different judgments in the same case,safeguard the justice and dignity of the judiciary,and play a positive role in the legislation and the judiciary of environmental crimes in China to a certain extentand the development of environmental protection rule of law.