Differentiation of criminal liability for intentional and negligent destruction or damage of objects of the plant world: foreign experience, national perspectives

R.A. Movchan
{"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.
故意和过失破坏或损坏植物世界物品的刑事责任的区分:外国经验,国家观点
该条的目的是对区分故意和过失破坏或损害植物生命物体的责任是否方便的问题作出科学的答复(《乌克兰刑法》第245条)。值得注意的是,几乎所有被分析的国家的议员都采取了一致的立场,认为有必要区分责任,一方面是森林(或一般植物世界的物体)的破坏或损害,这是粗心处理火灾或其他增加危险的来源的结果,另一方面,对于植物生命物体的破坏或损害,仅由纵火,也可以用爆炸或其他一般危险的方法。同时,考虑到上述纵火或其他普遍危险的故意行为的极高危险,议员的立场被认为是最合理的,他们承认这种行为为刑事非法行为,无论其造成的损害程度(正式构成)如何,这虽然不影响定罪,但同时被认为是区分责任的一个因素;至于粗心大意的火灾处理,考虑到这些行为客观上的公共危险程度较低,只有在产生一定后果的情况下,才需要对其行为承担刑事责任。还引用了单独的法院判决,其中根据同一准则(《乌克兰刑法》第245条),客观上对粗心大意和故意破坏或损害植物生命的不同表现,其公共危险程度不同,是合格的。通过写这篇文章,得出了一个一般性的结论,即需要区分刑事责任,一方面是纵火造成的故意破坏/损坏植物生命物体,另一方面是由于粗心处理火灾或其他增加危险的来源造成的植物生命物体的破坏/损坏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信