刑法(fa)第三百九十(shi)七條(tiao)規定了玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守罪，根據相關司法(fa)解釋，玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守罪是指(zhi)國家(jia)機關工(gong)作人員嚴重不(bu)(bu)負責(ze)任(ren)，不(bu)(bu)履(lv)行或不(bu)(bu)認真履(lv)行職(zhi)責(ze)，致使公(gong)共財產、國家(jia)和(he)人民利益遭受重大(da)損失的(de)行為。當前(qian)實務中，存在著對玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守罪認定泛(fan)化的(de)傾(qing)向，究其原因，主要是對行為人的(de)“職(zhi)守”（即職(zhi)責(ze)）和(he)“嚴重不(bu)(bu)負責(ze)任(ren)”的(de)認定不(bu)(bu)夠精(jing)準。

　　“職責”如何界定

　　玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守罪(zui)主要表現為(wei)(wei)(wei)不作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)(wei)的過(guo)失(shi)犯，作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)(wei)義務(wu)來源(yuan)是職(zhi)責(ze)(ze)認(ren)(ren)定(ding)的重要問題(ti)。我(wo)國刑(xing)法(fa)傳統理論認(ren)(ren)為(wei)(wei)(wei)，法(fa)律明(ming)文(wen)規定(ding)、職(zhi)務(wu)業務(wu)要求、法(fa)律行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)、先行(xing)(xing)(xing)行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)等(deng)是行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)(wei)義務(wu)的來源(yuan)。然(ran)而現實(shi)情況中，行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)的作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)(wei)義務(wu)經常來源(yuan)于委(wei)任(ren)、聘(pin)任(ren)、臨(lin)時(shi)性安排等(deng)情形(xing)。為(wei)(wei)(wei)解決(jue)此(ci)類(lei)職(zhi)責(ze)(ze)界(jie)限的問題(ti)，有觀(guan)點(dian)將(jiang)玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守罪(zui)中的職(zhi)責(ze)(ze)理解為(wei)(wei)(wei)法(fa)律法(fa)規明(ming)文(wen)規定(ding)的職(zhi)責(ze)(ze)與(yu)法(fa)律制(zhi)度(du)上作(zuo)(zuo)綜合、實(shi)質觀(guan)察所得出的職(zhi)責(ze)(ze)。該觀(guan)點(dian)雖(sui)能涵蓋玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)，但也可(ke)能導致認(ren)(ren)定(ding)玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守罪(zui)時(shi)將(jiang)職(zhi)責(ze)(ze)邊界(jie)隨意(yi)擴大，以概括性、原則性的職(zhi)責(ze)(ze)規定(ding)作(zuo)(zuo)為(wei)(wei)(wei)定(ding)罪(zui)依據(ju)，模糊了工作(zuo)(zuo)職(zhi)責(ze)(ze)與(yu)日常生(sheng)活的責(ze)(ze)任(ren)心界(jie)限。以下類(lei)型(xing)，是實(shi)務(wu)認(ren)(ren)定(ding)中應(ying)特(te)別留意(yi)的問題(ti)。

　　一、如果依據法定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)職(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)認定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)行為人(ren)(ren)構成(cheng)玩忽職(zhi)(zhi)守罪，則違反的(de)(de)職(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)應(ying)是明確(que)的(de)(de)，不(bu)成(cheng)文慣例(li)不(bu)應(ying)作為職(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)界定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)的(de)(de)依據。因(yin)為肯(ken)定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)主管機關(guan)整體的(de)(de)作為義務并(bing)不(bu)困難(nan)，但直接推導出其中某一特定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)公務員(yuan)具有(you)(you)作為義務，有(you)(you)時較(jiao)(jiao)為困難(nan)。對于行為人(ren)(ren)職(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)的(de)(de)原則性規定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)，如《突發(fa)公共衛生(sheng)事件應(ying)急(ji)條(tiao)例(li)》第四十(shi)二條(tiao)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)，有(you)(you)關(guan)部門、醫療(liao)衛生(sheng)機構在應(ying)對傳染病時有(you)(you)早(zao)發(fa)現、早(zao)報(bao)告、早(zao)隔離、早(zao)治療(liao)，切斷(duan)傳播途徑(jing)，防止(zhi)擴(kuo)散的(de)(de)職(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)。但該防控職(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)規定(ding)(ding)(ding)(ding)較(jiao)(jiao)籠統，并(bing)非衛生(sheng)部門內部的(de)(de)所(suo)有(you)(you)人(ren)(ren)員(yuan)都(dou)有(you)(you)防控職(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)，還需(xu)根據具體情形和內部職(zhi)(zhi)責(ze)分工具體判斷(duan)。

　　二、界定職責內涵的依據必須是工作(zuo)(zuo)規范(fan)，即行(xing)為規范(fan)和程序規范(fan)，而非從業操守和形象規范(fan)，后者更多(duo)帶有道德約束的意(yi)味，不涉及具體的工作(zuo)(zuo)職責。

　　三、行為(wei)(wei)人被臨(lin)時抽調或借用，從(cong)事本職工作(zuo)以外的(de)其他(ta)非實(shi)質(zhi)性(xing)工作(zuo)，沒有(you)參(can)與被評價為(wei)(wei)玩忽職守的(de)實(shi)質(zhi)性(xing)工作(zuo)時，不應認定其應負玩忽職守的(de)責(ze)任。

　　四、行為(wei)人的(de)(de)工作職(zhi)責(ze)僅(jin)在于對(dui)文字資(zi)料的(de)(de)字面審核，而不負實(shi)質性(xing)審查或(huo)審批(pi)的(de)(de)職(zhi)責(ze)時，不宜將資(zi)料真實(shi)性(xing)出現的(de)(de)問題歸(gui)咎于其玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守。對(dui)行為(wei)人簽(qian)署不具有實(shi)質內容的(de)(de)過程(cheng)性(xing)意見的(de)(de)行為(wei)，不應簡單將形(xing)式審核等同于玩忽(hu)(hu)職(zhi)守中的(de)(de)職(zhi)責(ze)。

　　五、行(xing)為人履行(xing)公務行(xing)為雖可能(neng)與(yu)本(ben)級要求不符，卻是按上(shang)級主管(guan)部(bu)門下發文件的(de)明確要求去做的(de)，則(ze)不應認定行(xing)為人有(you)玩(wan)忽職(zhi)守行(xing)為。

　　六、超出行為(wei)人(ren)自身知識和(he)技能(neng)的專(zhuan)業評(ping)估(gu)事項，經相關專(zhuan)業技術(shu)人(ren)員(yuan)簽字(zi)認可后，行為(wei)人(ren)最終簽字(zi)履(lv)行對該評(ping)估(gu)程(cheng)序(xu)的確認手續，由于該行為(wei)人(ren)不(bu)具有否定評(ping)估(gu)結論的專(zhuan)業技能(neng)，因此其行為(wei)并未違反工(gong)作(zuo)職(zhi)責，否則屬于片面加重職(zhi)責和(he)義(yi)務。

　　“嚴重不負責任”如何界定

　　刑(xing)(xing)(xing)法第九章瀆職罪(zui)中多個罪(zui)名(ming)的(de)罪(zui)狀(zhuang)都(dou)規(gui)(gui)定了“嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)責任”。由于(yu)(yu)過失(shi)犯罪(zui)實行(xing)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)含糊(hu)性，我國(guo)刑(xing)(xing)(xing)法在規(gui)(gui)定上述犯罪(zui)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)時采取了兩種(zhong)(zhong)模式(shi)：一種(zhong)(zhong)模式(shi)如(ru)傳(chuan)(chuan)染病(bing)防(fang)(fang)治失(shi)職罪(zui)，刑(xing)(xing)(xing)法規(gui)(gui)定的(de)是“從事傳(chuan)(chuan)染病(bing)防(fang)(fang)治的(de)政(zheng)府(fu)衛生行(xing)政(zheng)部門的(de)工作人員嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)責任，導致傳(chuan)(chuan)染病(bing)傳(chuan)(chuan)播或(huo)者流行(xing)，情節嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)的(de)”，此模式(shi)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)“嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)責任+危(wei)害(hai)(hai)結果”，“嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)責任”是對(dui)(dui)實行(xing)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)概括規(gui)(gui)定；另一種(zhong)(zhong)模式(shi)如(ru)動植物(wu)檢疫(yi)失(shi)職罪(zui)，刑(xing)(xing)(xing)法規(gui)(gui)定的(de)是“前款所列人員嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)責任，對(dui)(dui)應當檢疫(yi)的(de)檢疫(yi)物(wu)不(bu)(bu)檢疫(yi)，或(huo)者延誤檢疫(yi)出證(zheng)、錯誤出證(zheng)，致使國(guo)家利益遭受重(zhong)(zhong)大損(sun)失(shi)的(de)”，該(gai)模式(shi)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)“嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)責任+具體行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)+危(wei)害(hai)(hai)結果”，“嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)責任”是對(dui)(dui)實行(xing)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)提(ti)示性規(gui)(gui)定，若具體行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)不(bu)(bu)屬(shu)于(yu)(yu)“對(dui)(dui)應當檢疫(yi)的(de)檢疫(yi)物(wu)不(bu)(bu)檢疫(yi)，或(huo)者延誤檢疫(yi)出證(zheng)、錯誤出證(zheng)”的(de)范(fan)圍，但屬(shu)“嚴(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)責任”的(de)行(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)，仍可以認定為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)玩忽職守(shou)罪(zui)。

　　刑法及司(si)法解釋未(wei)對(dui)“嚴重(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)責(ze)(ze)任(ren)”作出界定(ding)(ding)，實(shi)務中，有的辦案人員未(wei)論證某(mou)行為(wei)為(wei)何屬于嚴重(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)責(ze)(ze)任(ren)，便徑(jing)直認定(ding)(ding)行為(wei)人構成(cheng)玩忽職守罪。筆者認為(wei)，對(dui)于“嚴重(zhong)不(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)責(ze)(ze)任(ren)”，可以從定(ding)(ding)性和定(ding)(ding)量(liang)兩個(ge)維度來認識。

　　對“嚴(yan)重不(bu)負(fu)責(ze)任”的定(ding)(ding)性。從詞義看(kan)，“不(bu)負(fu)責(ze)任”既可(ke)以用來表述主觀態(tai)度，也可(ke)用以形(xing)容客(ke)觀行為。從立法規(gui)定(ding)(ding)看(kan)，由(you)于玩(wan)忽職守罪(zui)是過失犯，如(ru)果不(bu)限制“不(bu)負(fu)責(ze)任”的程度，就可(ke)能將輕微不(bu)負(fu)責(ze)任或一般失職也定(ding)(ding)罪(zui)，造成“一般過失+嚴(yan)重后果=玩(wan)忽職守罪(zui)”，此(ci)時，“嚴(yan)重不(bu)負(fu)責(ze)任”的認定(ding)(ding)就被虛化了。

　　“嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)”在(zai)玩忽(hu)職守罪(zui)構(gou)成(cheng)(cheng)要(yao)件(jian)(jian)中(zhong)，是(shi)屬于(yu)主(zhu)觀構(gou)成(cheng)(cheng)要(yao)件(jian)(jian)還是(shi)客(ke)觀構(gou)成(cheng)(cheng)要(yao)件(jian)(jian)，有不(bu)(bu)(bu)同認(ren)識。主(zhu)觀要(yao)件(jian)(jian)說(shuo)認(ren)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)，行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)是(shi)在(zai)對(dui)公(gong)務敷衍塞責(ze)、馬(ma)虎草率的(de)(de)極不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)主(zhu)觀心態下(xia)選(xuan)擇(ze)不(bu)(bu)(bu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)或不(bu)(bu)(bu)認(ren)真履(lv)行(xing)(xing)職責(ze)，故(gu)其(qi)是(shi)一(yi)種主(zhu)觀構(gou)成(cheng)(cheng)要(yao)素(su)，是(shi)對(dui)過失(shi)犯罪(zui)主(zhu)觀過失(shi)程度(du)的(de)(de)規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)。客(ke)觀要(yao)件(jian)(jian)說(shuo)認(ren)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)，“嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)”是(shi)從行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)客(ke)觀上(shang)不(bu)(bu)(bu)履(lv)行(xing)(xing)或不(bu)(bu)(bu)認(ren)真履(lv)行(xing)(xing)職責(ze)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)程度(du)來反證(zheng)其(qi)屬“嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)”。筆(bi)者認(ren)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)，前述(shu)“嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)+危害結果(guo)”模(mo)式(shi)中(zhong)的(de)(de)“嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)”是(shi)對(dui)行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)概括性規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)，刑(xing)法條文規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)罪(zui)狀時(shi)不(bu)(bu)(bu)可(ke)能只規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)主(zhu)觀要(yao)素(su)而不(bu)(bu)(bu)規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)客(ke)觀要(yao)素(su)，因(yin)此該模(mo)式(shi)下(xia)的(de)(de)“嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)”應(ying)理解為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)客(ke)觀構(gou)成(cheng)(cheng)要(yao)件(jian)(jian)；“嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)+具(ju)體行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)+危害結果(guo)”模(mo)式(shi)中(zhong)的(de)(de)“嚴(yan)(yan)(yan)重(zhong)(zhong)不(bu)(bu)(bu)負(fu)(fu)(fu)責(ze)任(ren)(ren)”是(shi)對(dui)后(hou)面具(ju)體行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)的(de)(de)提示性或限定(ding)性規(gui)(gui)(gui)定(ding)，也應(ying)屬于(yu)客(ke)觀構(gou)成(cheng)(cheng)要(yao)件(jian)(jian)。當(dang)然，這樣理解并(bing)不(bu)(bu)(bu)意味其(qi)在(zai)主(zhu)觀方面含義的(de)(de)喪失(shi)，因(yin)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)主(zhu)觀層面的(de)(de)內容可(ke)以從客(ke)觀行(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)中(zhong)推斷。

　　對(dui)“嚴(yan)重不(bu)負責(ze)(ze)任(ren)(ren)”的(de)(de)定量。“嚴(yan)重”是對(dui)程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)度(du)(du)(du)的(de)(de)限(xian)定，既(ji)然將“嚴(yan)重不(bu)負責(ze)(ze)任(ren)(ren)”歸結(jie)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)犯罪客(ke)觀要件，那么，應當(dang)從(cong)“不(bu)負責(ze)(ze)任(ren)(ren)的(de)(de)行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)”來把握“嚴(yan)重”的(de)(de)程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)度(du)(du)(du)。實務中確實較難(nan)判斷“嚴(yan)重”程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)度(du)(du)(du)的(de)(de)界(jie)限(xian)，辦案人(ren)(ren)員更(geng)多選擇由果(guo)追因，如果(guo)發生法定危(wei)(wei)害(hai)結(jie)果(guo)，只要行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)履職行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)有(you)不(bu)當(dang)之處(chu)，便(bian)認定構成(cheng)玩忽職守(shou)罪。對(dui)此，筆(bi)者認為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)，行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)危(wei)(wei)害(hai)程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)度(du)(du)(du)的(de)(de)高(gao)低與履職程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)度(du)(du)(du)的(de)(de)高(gao)低密(mi)切關聯，原本(ben)(ben)應履行(xing)(xing)(xing)的(de)(de)職責(ze)(ze)完成(cheng)度(du)(du)(du)越高(gao)，行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)所(suo)導致的(de)(de)危(wei)(wei)險(xian)可(ke)(ke)能性(xing)(xing)就越低，行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)本(ben)(ben)身的(de)(de)社(she)會(hui)危(wei)(wei)害(hai)性(xing)(xing)就越小，嚴(yan)重程(cheng)(cheng)(cheng)度(du)(du)(du)也就越低。基于風險(xian)社(she)會(hui)的(de)(de)實際(ji)，為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)了(le)避免社(she)會(hui)發展裹足不(bu)前，行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)基本(ben)(ben)履行(xing)(xing)(xing)了(le)職責(ze)(ze)，若(ruo)其(qi)導致的(de)(de)風險(xian)屬可(ke)(ke)承受(shou)范圍，縱然某種不(bu)利結(jie)果(guo)出(chu)現，也不(bu)宜(yi)歸咎于行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)。類(lei)似的(de)(de)情形還(huan)有(you)：行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)已經做(zuo)了(le)自己職責(ze)(ze)范圍內(nei)應當(dang)做(zuo)到的(de)(de)主要事情；行(xing)(xing)(xing)為(wei)(wei)(wei)(wei)人(ren)(ren)一(yi)直恪盡職守(shou)，做(zuo)了(le)大量工(gong)作，已窮盡了(le)現有(you)條(tiao)件下本(ben)(ben)職崗(gang)位所(suo)能做(zuo)的(de)(de)一(yi)切工(gong)作。

　　（劉冕  作(zuo)者單位(wei)：湖北省紀委監(jian)委）