摘要
《刑法修正案(三)》在《刑法》第125条增设非法买卖危险物质罪时,并未对危险物质的范围做出明确界定。《关于办理非法制造、买卖、运输、储存毒鼠强等禁用剧毒化学品刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《解释》)、《关于公安机关管辖的刑事案件立案追诉标准的规定(一)》(以下简称《追诉标准》)的出台不仅没有加以明确和规范,反而进一步引发了对非禁用剧毒化学品是否属于危险物质的争论。在刑事追诉和定罪量刑过程中,控辩双方的对立也变得十分明确和尖锐。笔者虽赞同《司法解释》属于一个列举式的解释,但并不意味着承认对危险物质的范围仅作文理理解,刑法的特质决定了毒害性物质中的化学品应当局限在"禁用剧毒化学品"为宜。该罪不属于抽象危险犯。应该忠实遵循协调性、科学性的原则来理解《刑法》、《解释》以及《追诉标准》的关系和适用。
When the Amendment （III） to the Criminal Law of the People＇s Republic of Chi- na created the crime of illegal trade in dangerous substances in article 125 of the Criminal Law, it didn＇t set forth the clear definition of the range to the dangerous substance. The promulgation of the Judicial Interpretation and the Prosecution Standards not only failed to give the clarification or specification, but further triggered a debate on whether the non -prohibited hypertoxic chemicals are dangerous substances. The opposition of the prosecution and defense is becoming specific and sharp during the process of the criminal prosecution as well as conviction and sentencing. Al- though I agree with Judicial Interpretation belongs to an enumeration type of explanation, but that does not mean recognition of the literal rule in the range of dangerous substances. The character- istic of the criminal law determines the chemicals of toxic substances should be limited to prohibi- ted hypertoxic chemicals. The crime does not belong to abstract potential damage offense. The re- lationship and application of the understanding of Criminal Law, judicial interpretation and the Prosecution Standards should faithfully follow coordinative, scientific principles.
出处
《法学杂志》
CSSCI
北大核心
2013年第1期80-94,共15页
Law Science Magazine
基金
作者主持的国家社科基金项目"犯罪治理与刑事司法犯罪化"(11BFX102)的阶段性成果
"高水平特色法学学科建设与人才培养工程(085工程)"的资助
关键词
买卖
禁用
剧毒化学品
危险物质
trade prohibition hypertoxic chemicals cangerous substances
