结 语
环境和人类生活息息相关，经济发展不可避免的给环境带来污染和破坏的问题，经济发展保障人类的生活水平有所提高，但环境污染和破坏又给人类生活带来了灾难和隐患。特别自20世纪以来，气候变暖、臭氧层破坏、酸雨蔓延、大气、水体、固体废物污染、森林被破坏、自然资源被浪费等等问题已是家喻户晓，它们已经严重威胁到了人们的生存环境。为了人类的长远利益，法律在必要的时候伸出了它的调节之手，对经济发展和环境破坏这一矛盾进行了调节，刑法就是其中不可或缺的一部分。我们相信，随着大家对环境问题的关心和重视程度的提高，随着环境立法的不断完善，随着对环境犯罪惩治的确定性的提高，我们一定可以迎来人类和环境和谐相处的美好明天。
11
参 考 文 献：
[1]周道鸾著：《刑法的修改和适用》，人民法院出版社1998年版。 [2]付立忠著：《环境刑法学》，中国方正出版社2001年版。
[3]杨春洗等编著：《危害环境罪的理论与实务》，高等教育出版社1999年版。 [4]蒋兰香著：《环境刑法》，中国林业出版社2004年版。 [5]陈兴良著：《刑法哲学》，中国政法大学出版社1992年版。 [6]陈仁、朴光诛编著：《环境执法基础》，法律出版社1997年版。 [7]陈兴良著：《刑法适用总论（上卷）》，法律出版社1999年版。
[8]博登海默著、邓正来译：《法理学――法律哲学与法律方法》，中国政法大学出版社1999年版。 [9]杜澎：《破坏环境资源犯罪研究》，中国方正出版社2000年版。
[10]覃志军、徐立：《重大环境污染事故罪的构成特征》，载《湘潭师范学院学报》2004年第2期。 [11]李光禄、牛忠志：《论刑事严格责任原则的合理性》，载《山东公安专科学校学报》2004年第1期。 [12]骆梅芬：《英美法系刑事法律中严格责任与绝对责任之比辨析》，载《中山大学学报》1999年第5期。 [13]李景城、李居全：《重大环境污染事故罪能否采纳严格责任》，载《大庆师范学院学报》2006年第4期。 [14]邓文莉：《我国环境刑法中不宜适用严格责任原则》，载《法商研究》2003年第2期。 [15]曹子丹、颜九红：《关于环境犯罪若干问题的探讨》，载《法制与社会发展》1998年第4期。 [16] 隋秋敏、郭云峰：《刑法中严格责任之定义》，载《昭通师范高等专科学校学报》2006年第1期。 [17]孟庆华：《重大环境污染事故罪的主观要件问题探讨》，载《湖南公安高等专科学校学报》2004年第3期。
[18]黄广进：《英美刑法中的严格责任在辨正》，载《江南大学学报》2006年第5期。 [19]陈君：《论我国环境刑法中严格责任的适用》，载《北京工业大学学报》2005年第1期。 [21] 黄隆丰：《论公害犯罪》，载《刑事法杂志（台湾）》1979年第2期。
[22]郭亚：《刑法中的严格责任若干问题研究．http://www.chinaue.com/html/2004-1/2005121.htm，2005-12-12
[23] Campbell & Peter Nygh. Transnational Tort Litigation: Jurisdictional Principles. Clarendon Press. 1996, p.75.
12
附 录
附件一：英文文献
INTRODUCTION
Offences of strict liability are those crimes which do not require mens rea with regard to at least one or more elements of the actus reus. The defendant need not have intended or known about that circumstance or consequence. Liability is said to be strict with regard to that element. For a good example see: R v Prince[1875]：The defendant ran off with an under-age girl. He was charged with an offence of taking a girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her parents contrary to s55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The defendant knew that the girl was in the custody her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18. It was held that knowledge that the girl was under the age of 16 was not required in order to establish the offence. It was sufficient to show that the defendant intended to take the girl out of the possession of her father. It is only in extreme and rare cases where no mens rea is required for liability, thereby making the particular offence \
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The vast majority of strict liability crimes are statutory offences. However, statutes do not state explicitly that a particular offence is one of strict liability. Where a statute uses terms such as \Alternatively, it may make it clear that an offence of strict liability is being created. In many cases it will be a matter for the courts to interpret the statute and decide whether mens rea is required or not. What factors are taken into account by the courts when assessing whether or not an offence falls into the category of strict liability offences?
THE MODERN CRITERIA
In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong [1984], the Privy Council
considered the scope and role of strict liability offences in the modern criminal law and their effect upon the \
should decide whether or not it is appropriate to impose strict liability: \the law … may be stated in the following propositions … : (1) there is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence; (2) the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is \applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute; (4) the only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, and public safety is such an issue; (5) even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the
13
objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act.\
(1) PRESUMPTION OF MENS REA
Courts usually begin with the presumption in favor of mens rea, seeing the well-known statement by Wright J in Sherras v De Rutzen：There is a presumption that mens rea, or evil intention, or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered (2) GRAVITY OF PUNISHMENT
As a general rule, the more serious the criminal offence created by statute, the less likely the courts is to view it as an offence of strict liability. See:
Sweet v Parsley [1970]： The defendant was a landlady of a house let to tenants. She retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and letters. While she was absent the police searched the house and found cannabis. The defendant was convicted under s5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, of \smoking of cannabis\indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such knowledge.The House of Lords,quashing her conviction, held that it had to be proved that the defendant had intended the house to be used for drug-taking, since the statute in question created a serious, or \for which would have grave consequences for the defendant. Lord Reid stated that \attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence, and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma\are vigilant to expose injustice, and every manifestly unjust conviction made known to the public tends to injure the body politic [people of a nation] by undermining public confidence in the justice of the law and of its administration.\
Lord Reid went on to point out that in any event it was impractical to impose absolute liability for an offence of this nature, as those who were responsible for letting properties could not possibly be expected to know everything that their tenants were doing. (3) WORDING OF THE STATUTE
In determining whether the presumption in favor of mens rea is to be displaced, the courts are required to have reference to the whole statute in which the offence appears. See:
Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) ：The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act 1872. On appeal, the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customer's drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. The Divisional Court interpreted s13 as creating an offence of strict liability since it was itself silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant. It was held that it was not necessary to consider whether the defendant knew, or had means of knowing, or could with ordinary care have detected that the person served was drunk. If he served a drink to a person who was in fact drunk, he was guilty. Stephen J stated: Here, as I have already pointed out, the object of this part of the Act is to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor to drunken persons, and it is perfectly natural to carry that out by throwing on the publican the responsibility of determining whether the person supplied comes within that category.
14
(4) ISSUES OF SOCIAL CONCERN
See :R v Blake (1996) :Investigation officers heard an unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was discovered alone standing in front of the record decks, still playing music and wearing a set of headphones. Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. The defendant was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a license, contrary to s1 (1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens rea.
The Court of Appeal held that the offence was an absolute (actually a strict) liability offence. The Court applied Lord Scarman's principles in Gammon and found that, though the presumption in favor of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was, therefore, \interests of public safety (namely, frequent unlicensed broadcasts on frequencies used by
emergency services) and the imposition of strict liability encouraged greater vigilance in setting up careful checks to avoid committing the offence.
(5) IS THERE ANY PURPOSE IN IMPOSING STRICT LIABILITY?
The courts will be reluctant to construe a statute as imposing strict liability upon a defendant, where there is evidence to suggest that despite his having taken all reasonable steps, he cannot avoid the commission of an offence. See:
Sherras v De Rutzen [1895]: The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty, contrary to s16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. He had reasonably believed the constable to be off duty as he had removed his arm-band, which was the acknowledged method of signifying off duty. The Divisional Court held that the conviction should be quashed, despite the absence from s16 (2) of any words requiring proof of mens rea as an element of the offence.
Wright J expressed the view that the presumption in favor of mens rea would only be displaced by the wording of the statute itself, or its subject matter. In this case the latter factor was significant, in that no amount of reasonable care by the defendant would have prevented the offence from being committed. Wright J stated: \the part of the publican could save him from a conviction under section 16, subsection (2), since it would be as easy for the constable to deny that he was on duty when asked, or to produce a forged permission from his superior officer, as to remove his armlet before entering the public house. I am, therefore, of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed.\
MODERN EXAMPLES
The following case is a modern example of the imposition of strict liability: Alphacell v
Woodward [1972] The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river
contrary to s2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The river had in fact been polluted because a pipe connected to the defendant's factory had been blocked, and the defendants had not been negligent. The House of Lords nevertheless held that the defendants were liable. Lord Salmon stated: If this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction be obtained under the 1951 Act unless the prosecution could discharge the often impossible onus of proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred to the relief of many riparian factory owners. As a result, many rivers which are now filthy would become filthier still and many rivers which are now clean
15
本科毕业论文格式范文标准格式
