如你想要拥有完美无暇的友谊，可能一辈子找不到朋友。 清 华 大 学 本科生毕业论文
题 目：*******************************
学生姓名： *************
指导老师： *************
学 院： *************
专业班级： *************
完成时间： *************
清 华 大 学
毕业论文（设计）任务书
毕业论文（设计）题目 重大环境污染事故罪主观方面探析 题目类型 理论研究 题目来源 生产实际题 网址：www.daodoc.com/html/2004-1/2005121.htm 2005-12-12 [23] Campbell & Peter Nygh.Transnational Tort Litigation: Jurisdictional Principles.Clarendon Pre.1996 p.75.
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 poeion 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 poeion of her father.It is only in extreme and rare cases where no mens rea is required for liability thereby making the particular offence "absolute".
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 "knowingly" or "recklely" then the offence being created is one that requires mens rea.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 aeing 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 "presumption of mens rea".Lord Scarman laid down the criteria upon which a court should decide whether or not it is appropriate to impose strict liability: "In their Lordships' opinion 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 "truly criminal" in character; (3) the presumption applies to statutory offences and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by neceary 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 iue of social concern and public safety is such an iue; (5) even where a statute is concerned with such an iue the presumption of mens rea stands unle it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commiion 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 wrongfulne of the act is an eential 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 le 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 "being concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of cannabis".She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and 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 "truly criminal" offence conviction for which would have grave consequences for the defendant.Lord Reid stated that "a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma".And equally important "the pre in this country 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 poibly 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 drunkenne 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 exprely required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant.It was held that it was not neceary 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. (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 wirele telegraphy equipment without a license contrary to s1 (1) Wirele 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 "truly criminal" yet the offence dealt with iues of serious social concern in the 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 commiion 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 expreed 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: "It is plain that if guilty knowledge is not neceary no care on 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 permiion 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 neverthele 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 unle the prosecution could discharge the often impoible 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 would lose their cleanline.The legislature no doubt recognized that as a matter of public policy this would be most unfortunate.Hence s2(1)(a) which encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything poible to ensure that they do not cause it.ARGUMENTS FOR STRICT LIABILITY 1.The primary function of the courts is the prevention of forbidden acts.What acts should be regarded as forbidden? Surely only such acts as we can aert ought not to have been done.Some of the judges who upheld the conviction of Prince did so on the ground that men should be deterred from taking girls out of the poeion of their parents whatever the girl's age.This reasoning can hardly be applied to many modern offences of strict liability.We do not wish to deter people from driving cars being concerned in the management of premises financing hire purchase transactions or canning peas.These acts if done with all proper care are not such acts as the law should seek to prevent.2.Another argument that is frequently advanced in favor of strict liability is that without it many guilty people would escapethat is liability for negligencewhich comes close to requiring negligence.If there were something which D could do to prevent the commiion of the crime and which he failed to do he might generally be said to have failed to comply with a dutyof care; and so have been negligent.4.In Alphacell v Woodward (1972) Lord Salmon thought the relevant statutory section "encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything poible to ensure that they do not cause it." This suggests that however vast the expenditure involved and however unreasonable it may be in relation to the risk D is under a duty to take all poible steps.Yet it may be doubted whether factory owners will in fact do more than is reasonable; and it is questionable whether they ought to be required to do so at the riskof imprisonment.The contrary argument is that the existence of strict liability does induce organizations to aim at higher and higher standards.POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS There are several poible compromises between mens rea and strict liability in regulatory offences.A "halfway house" has developed in Australia.The effect of Australian cases is: D might be convicted without proof of any mens rea by the Crown; but acquitted if he proved on a balance of probabilities that he lacked mens rea and was not negligent; ie that he had an honest and reasonable belief in a state of facts which would have made his act innocent.The onus of proving reasonable mistake is on D.STATUTORY DEFENCES It is common for the drastic effect of a statute imposing strict liability to be mitigated by the provision of a statutory defense.It is instructive to consider one example.Various offences relating to the treatment and sale of food are enacted by the first twenty sections of the Food Safety Act 1990.Many if not all of these are strict liability offences.Section 21(1) however provides that it shall be a defense for the person charged with any of the offences to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commiion of the offence by himself or by a person under his control.Statutory defenses usually impose on the defendant a burden of proving that he had no mens rea and that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commiion of an offence.The effect of such provisions is that the prosecution need do no more than prove that the accused did the prohibited act and it is then for him to establish if he can that he did it innocently.Such provisions are a distinct advance on unmitigated strict liability.附件二：英文文献翻译
介绍
严格责任犯罪是关于客观方面的一个或多个因素不要求犯罪意图的那些犯罪 被告不需故意或者知道这种情况或结果 考虑到这个因素责任被称作是严格的 请看一个很好的例子：
在1984年R v Prince之案：被告和一个未成年的女孩私奔 他被指控的罪名是将一个未满16的女孩带出她父母的监控之外 违反了1861 年侵害人身法第55条 被告明知该女孩在其父亲的监护下
但他有合理的理由相信该女孩已经18岁了 有人认为为了成立本罪
明知该女孩未满16岁不被要求
证明被告故意将该女孩带离出其父亲的监护之下就足够了 仅在极端和少数的案例中 承担责任不要求有犯罪意图
因此使这种特定的犯罪成为绝对的
一般原则
绝大多数严格责任犯罪都是法定犯罪 不过
立法并没有明确规定某一犯罪属于严格责任犯罪 当法规用故意地或鲁莽地这样的字眼时 就表明这一犯罪还是要求犯罪意图的 或者
法规可以明确地规定本罪是严格责任犯罪 在许多案子中
都将会由法院来解释法规和决定犯罪意图是否被要求 当判定一个犯罪是否属于严格责任犯罪的种类时 法院将会考虑什么因素呢？ 现代标准
在（香港）加蒙有限公司诉香港律政司一案中
枢密院考虑了现代刑法中严格责任犯罪的范围和作用以及它们在犯罪意图推定上的效力 Scarman勋爵定下了一个标准
法院应该以此决定施加严格责任是否适合 在阁下的意见中
法律可以在下列的提议中被陈述：（1）法律假定一个人被认定有罪前要求其有犯罪意图 （2）该种犯罪在性质上是"真正的犯罪"时特别要求这一推定 （3）这一推定适用于成文法中的犯罪
只有法规明确规定或必要的暗指时才可以不要这一推定 （4）不要这一推定的唯一场合 是成文法关注社会关心的问题时 如公共安全问题
（5）成文法即使关注这一问题 犯罪意图的推定仍然存在
除非严格责任的创制有力地推定成文法的目标 即通过严厉的警告阻止实施被禁止的行为
（1）推定要求犯罪意图的存在
法院通常一开始推定支持犯罪意图的存在
请看在Sherras v De Rutzen之案中Wright J的著名陈述：存在这样的假定 即犯罪意图或邪恶意图或明知行为的不法
是每一个犯罪不可或缺的要素 .但是这种假定在两种情况下可以不要
要么是法规所创制的罪名的语言明确规定要么是它所处理的事情主旨要求这么做 并且两者都必须被考虑
（2）惩罚的严重性
作为一个一般规则 被法规创制的犯罪越严重
法院就越不可能将它看作一个严格责任犯罪 请看：
1970年Sweet v Parsley之案：被告是一所出租房子的房东 她在那所房子里为自己保留了一个房间 偶尔前往收取租金和信件.在她不在的时候 警察搜查了房子并且发现了大麻
被告在1965年《危险药品法》第5条之下 被宣告有罪
因为考虑到在存在加以管理的前提下 她的房子被用于吸食大麻 她上诉声称
她不知道那种情况
而且实在不能够合理的企盼她知道 上议院取消了她的有罪判决
认为控诉方必须证明被告故意将她的房子用于吸食毒品
因为正在讨论的这一法规创制了一个严重或者说是一个真正的罪名 该罪名的有罪判决将会给被告带来严重的后果
Reid法官声称：耻辱将会附属于任何一个触犯了真正犯罪的人 这种犯罪越严重或越可耻 这种耻辱就越大
并且同等重要的是：这个国家的记者警醒地披露着不公正
每一个显然是不公正的定罪公诸于世势必破坏公众对法律和行政管理正义的信心而损害国民.
Reid法官进一步指出 在任何情况下
因为犯罪的这种性质
施加绝对责任都是不切实际
因为对那些负责出租房屋的人来说
是不可能指望他们知道他们的租户所做的一切事情的
（3）法规的明确规定
在确定是否推定主张犯罪意图的存在被取代时 法院被要求参考出现该罪名的整个法规 请看：
1884年Cundy v Le Cocq之案：被告被判非法出售酒给喝醉酒的人 违反了1872年许可法第13条 在上诉中 被告主张他没有意识到顾客是醉酒的状态因此他应该被免责 地区法院将第13条解释为 它创制了严格责任罪名
因为它本身对犯罪意图是沉默的
然而在该相同法令下的其他罪名都清楚地表明要求证明被告方面的明知
法院认为考虑被告是否明知或可能知道或基于普通的注意本能够察觉他所服务的人是喝醉酒的是不必要的
如果他把酒卖给一个事实上是喝醉酒的人 他就是有罪的
Stephen J陈述道：在这里 正如我已经指出的一样
该法令本部分的目标是为了防止出售烈酒给醉酒者
并且将确定他所给予的人是否属于这一类人的责任赋予公众这将是非常自然执行的
（4）社会所关心的问题
请看：1996年R v Blake之案：侦查人员听到了一个未经许可的无线电广播 并追查到了一个公寓
在那儿被告被发现独自站在一个唱片机前 仍旧在演奏音乐并且带着一套耳机 尽管被告承认他知道他在用这套设备
但他声称他相信他在制作示范录音带并不知道他在传播信号 被告被判无证使用无线电报设备罪
违反了1949年无线电报法令第1条第1款 被告基于该罪要求犯罪意图而上诉.
地区法院认为该罪是绝对（准确说是严格）责任犯罪 法院适用了Scarman勋爵在加蒙案中所确定的原则 且发现
因为该罪会被判处监禁的刑罚因此它是"真正的犯罪" 所以尽管犯罪意图的推定被要求
但是本罪处理的是社会关心的关乎公共安全利益的严重问题（即通常无证的广播频率被用于紧急服务）
并且严格责任的实行鼓励了更高的警惕来检查 以避免犯同样的罪
（5）施加严格责任是否有目的呢？
当有证据显示
尽管被告采取了一切合理步骤
他仍不能避免犯罪时
法院不愿意将这一法条解释成强加了严格责任给被告 请看：
1895年Sherras v De Rutzen之案：被告被判有罪因为将烈酒卖给了一个正在执勤的警官
违反了1872年许可法第16条第2款 被告有合理理由相信该警官已经下班了 因为他已将他的臂章取下来了 而这是判定已经下班的公认方法 地区法院认为该判决应该被撤销
尽管第16条第2款没有任何语言要求证明犯罪意图而作为构成该罪的要素之一 Wright J认为推定要求犯罪意图的存在只有在法规明文规定或者它的主旨所要求时才可以被取代
在这种情况下后者的因素是很重要的
因为被告再多的合理注意也不能阻止犯罪 Wright J陈述道：不难看出 犯罪故意是不必要的
酒馆老板的不注意在第16条第2款下可以免其罪 因为在被询问时警官将会非常容易地否认他在上班 或者出示一个从他上司那儿搞来的伪造许可 正如在他进入酒吧之前可以将臂章取下来一样 因此
我主张该判决应该被撤销
现代案例
下面这一案例是一个施加严格的现代案例：在1972年Alphacell v Woodward之案中 被告被控造成污染物进入河流 违反了1951河流（防止污染）法
因为连接被告工厂的一个管道被阻塞了 导致河流实际上已经被污染了 但被告并没有过失
但是上议院认为被告是有责任的
Salmon法官陈述道：如果本上诉成功了
它会被认为在1951法案下将不会有定罪判决 除非控诉方能够卸下这经常是不可能的证明责任 即证明污染是被告故意或过失造成的
这对许多河岸工厂的所有者来说是一种证明责任的减轻 这必将造成大量的污染案件得不到惩罚和制止 结果必将是
许多现在不洁净的河流将会变得更加污秽 许多现在洁净的河流也将失去它们的洁净 立法无疑得承认
作为一个公共政策问题
这将是非常不幸的.因此在第2条第1款a项下 鼓励河岸厂家不仅要采取合理措施来防止污染 而且要尽一切可能确保它们不会造成这种污染.支持严格责任的观点
1、法院的主要功能是阻止被禁止的行为
什么行为应该被认作是被禁止的呢？当然只有那些我们可以断言不应该做的行为 一些不支持Prince有罪判决的法官基于认为无论女孩的年龄 人们都应该阻止将女孩带出其父母监护之外的行为而也这样认为 这样的推理几乎可以适用于多数现代严格责任犯罪 我们不希望阻止人驾驶汽车
关心有前提的管理、提供经费给分期付款的交易或买卖罐头豌豆这些小交易 这些行为
如果基于所有合理的注意而被从事了 那么将不是法律应该试图阻止的行为
2、另一个经常被用来支持严格责任的观点是 没有严格责任
许多犯罪人将会逃脱惩罚－既不会有时间也不会有有用的人来对每一个特定的犯罪提起诉讼追究其责任 这个观点假设
不确定被告是否有犯罪意图
是否有过失也将是可能来处理这些案件的 当然不解决这些问题被告也有可能被宣告有罪
但是他能被苛处刑罚吗？假如一个屠夫出售了一些不适合人们消费的肉 法院当然会根据不同的情况有不同的处理：（i）屠夫知道这个肉是坏的（ii）屠夫不知道 但是应当知道（iii）屠夫不知道而且也没有方法去发现 不解决宣告有罪的人属于哪一种类型 刑罚将很难被执行
3、最可能并且最经常被法院引用来施加严格责任的理由是为了公共利益这样做是必要的
现在这种情况可能被承认
即在强加适用严格责任的许多案例中 的确需要对抗疏忽来保护公众
并且假设惩罚的威胁使潜在的危害者更加小心
将可能会有一个正当的根据来施加过失责任正如有正当的根据来要求犯罪意图的地方一样 如果在犯罪意图和严格责任之间没有中间道路即过失责任的话 这是一个似乎合理的观点来支持严格责任
而且法官一般情况下将会在认为没有这样的中间道路的基础上审理案件 过失责任很少在一个法规中得以阐明除了它被明确无误要求的场合 如没有合理注意的驾驶时
Devlin法官说：找一个方法将一个显然表示严格责任的法规解释成要求疏忽 这是不容易的
反对严格责任的观点
1、反对严格责任的理由是首先它是不必要的 它导致那些行为没有缺点
不应该被要求改变他们的行为方式的人被宣告有罪
2、它是不公平的
即使一个绝对的卸任被赋予了被告 他也可能因他被正式宣告有罪而感到不公平那怕他对此罪名不承担责任 另外
一个有罪判决可能产生超出法庭之外的深远后果 所以说仅说一个名义上的惩罚被施加了是不合适的
3、过失责任的实施实际上满足了大多数支持严格责任的人的要求
这些法规的目的不是惩罚恶意而是对那些欠考虑的和低能力的人施加了压力使他们为了公共健康或安全或道德尽他们的整体职责 当然
欠考虑和低能力是疏忽
反对严格责任并不是因为这些人会受到惩罚 而是那些完全无辜的人也会受到有罪判决
尽管Devlin勋爵对引进疏忽的标准的可能性持怀疑态度 但是在1951年Reynolds v Austin案中他说 严格责任仅应在一种情况下适用
即当被告能够做些什么事情来提高对法律的遵守时 这接近于要求疏忽
如果有一些事情被告可以做来避免犯罪而他又未能做时 一般情况下
它可能被认为未能完成一项职责 而且可能是一项较高的注意职责 因此被告存在疏忽
4、在1972年Alphacell v Woodward案中Salmon勋爵考虑到了相关的法定条款 鼓励河岸厂家不仅要采取合理措施来防止污染
而且要尽一切可能确保它们不会造成这种污染.但是这意味着要用到庞大的开支 并且这种开支对它可能涉及到的风险来说是不合理的 被告在此责任之下需要采取所有可能的步骤
但是工厂所有者实际上是否会尽比合理的责任更多的责任呢 这是被怀疑的
而且冒着-尽管是不可能的-监禁风险 他们是否应该被要求这样做也是可疑的 相反的观点是 严格责任的存在
确实导致团体瞄准了更高的标准
可能的发展
在犯罪意图和严格责任之间有几个可能的折衷办法来调节犯罪 在澳大利亚所谓的"中途歇脚小客栈"已经发展起来了 澳大利亚这类案件的效果是：没有犯罪意图的证明 被告也可能被皇家法院定罪 但是
如果在一个可能性的平衡上他能证明自己没有犯罪意图并且不存在疏忽 那么他就会被免罪 也就是说
他对这种事实状态有一种诚实和合理信念 认为这种事实会使他的行为无罪 证明这种合理错误的责任在被告方
法定辩护理由
一项法规施加严格责任将会产生严厉得效果 通常会通过规定法定辩护条款来缓解这种效果 考虑一个例子是有益的
涉及处理和销售食品的各种犯罪通过1990年食品安全法首20条被规定 即便不是全部也将是大部分的这类犯罪是严格责任犯罪 但是
第21条第1款规定
证明他本人或在他控制之下的一个人采取了一切合理的预防措施 并已尽一切应尽的努力来避免犯本罪
对被控犯任何一个这类罪的人来说都将是一个辩护理由 法定抗辩通常是强加给被告的一个举证责任 即证明他没有犯罪意图 他采取了一切合理措施
并已尽一切应尽的努力来避免犯本罪 这样条款的作用是
控方只需证明被告从事了被禁止的行为 接下来
如果被告能够证明的话就有被告来证明他这样做是无辜的
致 谢
在本论文的写作即将完成之际 笔者的心情无法平静
本文的完成既是笔者孜孜不倦努力的结果
更是导师王飞跃副教授亲切关怀和悉心指导的结果 在整个论文的选题、研究和撰写过程中
导师都给了我精心的指导、热忱的鼓励和支持 他多次询问论文的写作进程
多次为我批阅文章并提出修改意见 他的精心点拨为我开拓了研究视野 修正了写作思路
对论文的完善和质量的提高起到了关键性的作用 另外 导师严谨求实的治学态度、一丝不苟的工作作风和高尚的人格魅力 都给了学生很大感触 使学生终生受益 在此
学生谨向导师致以最真挚的感激和最崇高的敬佩之情
另外
我还需要特别感谢杨开湘教授、罗树志副教授和张纪寒副教授等对我多年的教育和培养之恩 俗话说："教师是太阳底下最光辉的事业" 在您们身上
我看到了这句话的真谛 您们谆谆的教导
伟大的人格和无私奉献的精神 让我终生难忘 永远鞭策我前进 在此
我要向诸位老师深深地鞠上一躬
再者
还要感谢四年来在学习和生活中所有给予我关心、支持和帮助的老师和同学们 特别是我寝室的姐妹们
四年来我们一起学习、一起玩耍 共同度过了太多的美好时光
我们始终是一个团结、友爱、积极向上的集体 我们六人中即将有一人出国 四人就读研究生
即将走向工作岗位的阿薇也是我们心目中的全才 "天下没有不散的宴席" 在我们即将分离的时刻 我别无他话
衷心的祝愿大家一路走好、前程似锦、一生平安幸福
最后
感谢我的爸爸妈妈 感谢您们赐予我生命
感谢您们二十多年来对我的养育之恩
更感谢您们不管多苦多难对我学业始终如一的理解与支持
向百忙之中抽出时间审稿和参加本论文答辩的老师致以深深的谢意 向您们说一声：敬爱的老师 您辛苦了！
董玉洁
二零零七年六月
①参见周道鸾著：《刑法的修改和适用》 人民法院出版社1998年版 第691页
②参见陈兴良著：《刑法哲学》 中国政法大学出版社1992年版 第165页
③刑法第338条 违反国家规定
向土地、水体、大气排放、倾倒或者处置有放射性的废物、含传染病病原体的废物、有毒物质或者其他危险废物 造成重大环境污染事故
致使公私财产遭受重大损失或者人身伤亡的严重后果的 处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役
并处或者单处罚金；后果特别严重的 处三年以上七年以下有期徒刑 并处罚金
④参见陈仁、朴光诛著：《环境执法基础》 法律出版社1997年版 第354页
⑤因为危险犯不是本文的讨论重点 所以对本罪处罚危险犯的情况不予讨论
⑥至于行为人违反国家规定实施排放、倾倒、处置危险废物这一行为本身 则可能出于过失 也可能出于故意
但均不影响本罪的过失犯罪性质
⑦这是因为根据一般人的生活经验
某些行为、状态或结果出现的本身在绝大多数情况下就能说明行为人的主观恶意 除非被告有能力证明自己的清白
⑧刑法第134条
工厂、矿山、林场、建筑企业或者其他企业、事业单位的职工 由于不服管理、违反规章制度 或者强令工人违章冒险作业
因而发生重大伤亡事故或者造成其他严重后果的 处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役；情节特别恶劣的 处三年以上七年以下有期徒刑 刑法第233条 过失致人死亡的
处三年以上七年以下有期徒刑；情节较轻的 处三年以下有期徒刑．本法另有规定的 依照规定
⑨民法通则第126条
建筑物或者其他设施以及建筑物上的搁置物、悬挂物发生倒塌、脱落、坠落造成他人损害的 它的所用人或者管理人应当承担民事责任 但能够证明自己没有过错的除外
⑩参见博登海默著、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 第486页
11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 第116～117页
12英美国家适用严格责任的犯罪往往是刑法中规定的微罪、违警罪等犯罪种类
13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 第49页
14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 第65～67页
15举证责任倒置是基于推定而实行的一种证明责任分配方式 所谓推定
是一种法律拟制
即在缺乏证据直接证实某一情况时 根据某些合理的因素和情况 判定某一事实存在的一种机制 既然是拟制
那么只要有可以反驳的事实和证据就可以推翻拟制事实
16参见刘仁文著：《严格责任论》 中国政法大学出版社2000年版 第120页
?? ?? ?? ??
II
