Protecting Environment through Criminal Sanction Aggravation

Q3 Social Sciences
Mahrus Ali, Rofi Wahanisa, J. Barkhuizen, Papontee Teeraphan
{"title":"Protecting Environment through Criminal Sanction Aggravation","authors":"Mahrus Ali, Rofi Wahanisa, J. Barkhuizen, Papontee Teeraphan","doi":"10.15294/jils.v7i1.54819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to explores the provision of aggravating criminal sanction that protects environment in environmental legislation. By focusing on the four laws as its primary data source, this study employed doctrinal legal research. The results showed that the weight accorded to criminal sanctions in environmental legislation, has varied. The PPLH Law provides for the amplification of criminal threats directed at corporations by adding 1/3 (one-third) of the criminal sentence. Only companies are subject to the penalty aggravation provisions of the Mining Law, and they are only imposed with one-third of the maximum criminal provision of fines. In the PPPH Law, the imposition of criminal threats weight is simply related to the quantity component. If the culprit is a corporation or official, the criminal sanction aggravation is increased by one-third. In Plantation Law, if the offender is a corporate or a government official, then the criminal punishment is intensified. The environment is protected through acts prohibited by environmental legislation, but the criminal threat weight is not directed toward environmental preservation. Existing penalty aggravations are confined to only two types of criminal penalties: jail and fines, both of which have no direct connection to environmental protection. As a result, weighting criminal sanctions refers to the changing quality and quantity issues in order to safeguard the environment. The transition from criminal sanction to treatment, or from one type of treatment to another, was the focus of quality considerations, while the twofold criminal fine system was the focus of quantity element.","PeriodicalId":32877,"journal":{"name":"JILS Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JILS Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v7i1.54819","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This paper aims to explores the provision of aggravating criminal sanction that protects environment in environmental legislation. By focusing on the four laws as its primary data source, this study employed doctrinal legal research. The results showed that the weight accorded to criminal sanctions in environmental legislation, has varied. The PPLH Law provides for the amplification of criminal threats directed at corporations by adding 1/3 (one-third) of the criminal sentence. Only companies are subject to the penalty aggravation provisions of the Mining Law, and they are only imposed with one-third of the maximum criminal provision of fines. In the PPPH Law, the imposition of criminal threats weight is simply related to the quantity component. If the culprit is a corporation or official, the criminal sanction aggravation is increased by one-third. In Plantation Law, if the offender is a corporate or a government official, then the criminal punishment is intensified. The environment is protected through acts prohibited by environmental legislation, but the criminal threat weight is not directed toward environmental preservation. Existing penalty aggravations are confined to only two types of criminal penalties: jail and fines, both of which have no direct connection to environmental protection. As a result, weighting criminal sanctions refers to the changing quality and quantity issues in order to safeguard the environment. The transition from criminal sanction to treatment, or from one type of treatment to another, was the focus of quality considerations, while the twofold criminal fine system was the focus of quantity element.
通过刑事制裁加重保护环境
本文旨在探讨环境立法中保护环境的加重刑事制裁的规定。本研究以四大法系为主要数据来源,采用理论法学研究。结果表明,在环境立法中给予刑事制裁的权重各不相同。《公共卫生法》规定,将针对公司的犯罪威胁增加三分之一(三分之一)的刑罚。只有公司才受《采矿法》加重处罚的规定的约束,而且只处以最高刑事规定罚款的三分之一。在PPPH法中,刑事威胁的施加权重仅与数量组成部分有关。如果罪犯是企业或公务员,刑事处罚加重幅度将增加三分之一。在《种植园法》中,如果违法者是公司或政府官员,则加重刑事处罚。环境保护是通过环境立法所禁止的行为来实现的,但刑事威胁权重并不指向环境保护。现有的加重处罚仅限于两种刑事处罚:监禁和罚款,这两种刑罚都与环境保护没有直接联系。因此,为了保护环境,加重刑事制裁是指改变质量和数量的问题。从刑事制裁到处理,或从一种处理方式到另一种处理方式的过渡是质量考虑的重点,而双重罚金制度是数量考虑的重点。
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信