Criminal Legislative Policy and Risk-With a Focus on Environmental Law

環境附屬刑法所保護的對象係屬環境本身，那麼損害環境的行為即可予以認定為環境刑法，反之保護的對象是在於不特定多數人的生命、身體、健康時，此時損害環境或環境因子的行為，是否亦能認定是環境刑法或公害刑法，在邏輯結構上將會是有所爭議的。本文將以風險社會的視角，定位行政罰與刑事罰之裁量界線，並試圖尋找出合理之理由，對我國環境附屬刑法的存在價值，作出合於邏輯之論證。在人類與環境的和諧共生的理論內涵上，實現了對人類中心主義與非人類中心主義的選擇性切割，既符合生態學上人與環境共存共榮的客觀規則，以及人與自然環境在本質上，內在統一的必備和諧基礎，又因其與傳統屬人領域的倫理正常銜接與適度超越，且具有可永續發展刑事政策目標為之支撐，將具有實現的可能性。 危險與風險係屬不同之概念，面對危險時我們可以明白知道它確切損害結果，而依此結果發生前判別最低損害的防禦行為。然而，對於風險的組成因現有知識或科技水準之侷限，並無法確切認知該原因所必然產生的結果狀態，因此我們僅能依現有科技水準，去判別一個可能產生的結果，該結果將因為時間與環境背景空間等等的變動，而產生另一個不確定的變動結果，且原因與原因之間常伴隨著複雜生物性、化學性、物理性等不確定的原因機制，而產生更多不確定的可能變動結果。 環境法中涉及環境風險之管制，尚無須直接發動刑罰權之最後手段，亦能解決環境問題的一種立法方式。我國現行環境法在無任何法益被破壞狀況下，仍存有刑事之處遇，係無刑法之基礎而不當，亦即環境法中之刑事處遇，若僅以法益為範疇時，應完全予以刪除為是。環境法之管理制度若能推動環境保護協議等制度，則可能成為未來解決環保議題，消弭公害糾紛的新模式型態。亦即民眾可接受健康風險上的補貼時，環境風險狀態的立法政策，應考慮將環境法中之刑事處遇予以移除，而以行政立法之結構來強化環境管理，將是一個較為妥適之立法政策。If what is protected by environmental criminal law is the environment itself, then any act that harms the environment may be deemed to be the subject of environmental criminal law. However, if what is protected is the life and health of unspecified persons, the question of whether an act that harms the environment or degrades environmental indicators may then also be deemed to fall within the scope of environmental criminal law, will be open to dispute in terms of the logical structure of jurisprudence. Examining the issues from the perspective of the risk society, this paper will delineate the adjudicative boundaries between administrative penalties and criminal penalties, and will attempt to elucidate reasonable grounds for those boundaries, in order to make a logically coherent argument as to what value derives from the existence of Taiwan’s environmental criminal law. In terms of the theoretical connotations of humankind’s peaceful coexistence with the environment, this approach embodies a selective distinction between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric standpoints. Such a distinction is consistent with the objective principle in ecological science of human dependence on the environment, and with the internally coherent basic foundation of harmony between humankind and the natural environment that is a prerequisite to human survival. It should also be practically feasible, due to a proper alignment with and appropriate further development of ethics, which is traditionally part of the human domain, and because it is underpinned by the policy aim of sustainable development of criminal justice. Danger and risk are different concepts. When confronted with danger, we can accurately recognize its potential harmful consequences, and, based on the foreseen outcomes, can identify mitigating actions to minimize harm, prior to the adverse event occurring. However, in the case of risk, because of our limited existing knowledge of the causes of risk and our limited level of science and technology, we cannot accurately perceive what consequences must inevitably arise from such causes. Therefore, in accordance with our existing level of science and technology, we can only identify likely outcomes. With the passage of time, and with changes in environment, background, and location, those outcomes will give rise to other uncertain and variable outcomes; and because of the interactions between different causal factors, typically involving complex and uncertain biological, chemical, and physical causal mechanisms, still further uncertain and variable outcomes may ensue. In environmental law, controls relating to environmental risk represent a legislative approach that can resolve environmental issues without the need to directly invoke the ultimate sanction of criminal penalties. Taiwan’s existing environmental law provides for criminal sanctions even in situations where no legal interest has been encroached upon. This is inappropriate, as it has no basis in the jurisprudential theory of criminal law. If the scope of criminal sanctions should properly be restricted to violations of legal interests, then the criminal sanctions currently contained in our environmental legislation ought to be repealed in their entirety. If, on the other hand, systems such as environmental protection agreements could be promoted as part of the regulatory mechanisms under our environmental law, they could provide a new model for resolving future environmental issues and disputes. That is to say, in a time when members of the public can accept subsidies in respect of health-related risks, legislative policy on environmental risk should consider removing criminal sanctions from environmental law, and use the legislative structures of administrative law to strengthen environmental management. This would be a more appropriate legislative policy