Differentiation of criminal liability for intentional and negligent destruction or damage of objects of the plant world: foreign experience, national perspectives
{"title":"Differentiation of criminal liability for intentional and negligent destruction or damage of objects of the plant world: foreign experience, national perspectives","authors":"R.A. Movchan","doi":"10.24144/2788-6018.2023.04.59","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is aimed at obtaining a scientifically based answer to the question of the expediency of differentiating responsibility for intentional and negligent destruction or damage to objects of plant life (Article 245 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).It is noted that the parliamentarians of absolutely all analyzed countries took a unanimous position on the need to differentiate responsibility for, on the one hand, the destruction or damage of forests (or objects of the plant world in general), which was the result of careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger, and , on the other hand, for the destruction or damage of objects of plant life, committed either by arson only, or also by explosion or other generally dangerous method. At the same time, the position of the parliamentarians, who, taking into account the extremely high danger of the aforementioned arson or other intentional acts of general danger, are considered to be the most justified, recognize such behavior as criminally illegal, regardless of the amount of damage caused by it (formal composition), which, while not affecting criminalization, is at the same time recognized as a factor of differentiation responsibility; as for careless handling of fire, given the objectively lower degree of public danger of these actions, criminal liability for their commission arises only if certain consequences occur.Separate court decisions are also cited, in which, according to the same norm (Article 245 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), objectively different manifestations of careless and intentional destruction or damage to plant life, which differ in the degree of public danger, are qualified.As a result of writing the article, a general conclusion is made about the need to differentiate criminal liability for, on the one hand, the intentional destruction/damage of plant life objects committed by arson, and, on the other hand, the destruction/ damage of plant life objects that were the result of careless handling fire or other sources of increased danger.","PeriodicalId":474211,"journal":{"name":"Analìtično-porìvnâlʹne pravoznavstvo","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analìtično-porìvnâlʹne pravoznavstvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.04.59","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The article is aimed at obtaining a scientifically based answer to the question of the expediency of differentiating responsibility for intentional and negligent destruction or damage to objects of plant life (Article 245 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).It is noted that the parliamentarians of absolutely all analyzed countries took a unanimous position on the need to differentiate responsibility for, on the one hand, the destruction or damage of forests (or objects of the plant world in general), which was the result of careless handling of fire or other sources of increased danger, and , on the other hand, for the destruction or damage of objects of plant life, committed either by arson only, or also by explosion or other generally dangerous method. At the same time, the position of the parliamentarians, who, taking into account the extremely high danger of the aforementioned arson or other intentional acts of general danger, are considered to be the most justified, recognize such behavior as criminally illegal, regardless of the amount of damage caused by it (formal composition), which, while not affecting criminalization, is at the same time recognized as a factor of differentiation responsibility; as for careless handling of fire, given the objectively lower degree of public danger of these actions, criminal liability for their commission arises only if certain consequences occur.Separate court decisions are also cited, in which, according to the same norm (Article 245 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), objectively different manifestations of careless and intentional destruction or damage to plant life, which differ in the degree of public danger, are qualified.As a result of writing the article, a general conclusion is made about the need to differentiate criminal liability for, on the one hand, the intentional destruction/damage of plant life objects committed by arson, and, on the other hand, the destruction/ damage of plant life objects that were the result of careless handling fire or other sources of increased danger.