求助PDF
{"title":"The Justification for Criminalization of “Simple” Illegal Forest Plantation Felling (Part 1, Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)","authors":"Irina V. Shishko, Svetlana V. Starovatova","doi":"10.17516/1997-1370-0753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Taking into account that the problem of illegal forest felling in Russia has not been solved so far, the article studies the justification for criminalization of illegal forest felling in considerable amount provided for under Part 1, Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the RF (“simple” illegal felling of forest plantations). According to the Criminal law theory de facto such offence aspires to complete or partial decriminalization, however, de jure such offence has been significantly criminalized. Referring to the theory of criminalization and decriminalization, the authors defined that criminal public danger possesses 2 subsystems (object and damage), “simple” illegal felling has got only one so-called subsystem, which is valuable object. The second subsystem (damage) is absent. The authors determined the significant amount of illegal felling by analyzing the judicial practice which in turn fails to meet the requirements of the legislation. In order to prosecute somebody for illegal felling it is enough to prove that the only one pine tree 26 cm in diameter and 16 meters high has been illegally cut down. Offenders are more often prosecuted for illegal felling in significant amount (Part 3, Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the RF) than for offence provided for under Part 1, Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the RF. As for the total number of verdicts rendered based on Part 2 and Part 3 of the given article, they are twice higher than the number of verdicts based on Part 1, Article 260. Nevertheless, the circumstances that are being introduced into this law as qualifying cannot go with the absolute majority of offences and become a kind of “standard norm” for them. The elements which characterize the overwhelming majority of the certain types of offences should be acknowledged as the essential elements of an offence. In this context authors assume that such indicator as the significant amount of felling should be considered as a criminalizing element of illegal felling. “Simple” illegal forest felling is to be decriminalized, so that sanctions of Part 1 and Part 2 of Article 8.28 of the Code of Administrative Offences are to be amended as well: fines should be increased, basic alternative kind of punishment should be implemented such as community service as well as supplementary punishment in a form of confiscation of work tool or the target of administrative offence. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 2021 14(5): 702–717 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved * Corresponding author E-mail address: ir-vic02@yandex.ru, sstarovatova@sfu-kras.ru ORCID: 0000-0002-9179-1113 (Shishko); 0000-0002-3394-9728 (Starovatova)","PeriodicalId":37201,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Siberian Federal University - Humanities and Social Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"702-717"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Siberian Federal University - Humanities and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0753","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用
“简单的”非法砍伐人工林罪化的理由(俄罗斯联邦刑法第260条第1部分)
考虑到俄罗斯的非法砍伐森林问题至今仍未得到解决,本文大量研究了俄罗斯联邦刑法第260条第1部分(“简单”非法砍伐人工林)规定的将非法砍伐森林定为刑事犯罪的理由。根据刑法理论,事实上这类罪行的目的是完全或部分非刑事化,但在法律上这类罪行已被严重刑事化。借鉴罪刑化与非罪刑化理论,认为刑事公害具有客体与损害两个子系统,而“单纯”的非法采伐只有价值客体一个子系统。第二个子系统(损伤)不存在。笔者通过对司法实践的分析,认定了非法采伐的重大数额,而这又不符合立法的要求。要以非法采伐罪起诉某人,只要证明唯一一棵直径26厘米、高16米的松树被非法砍伐就足够了。违法者往往因大量非法砍伐而受到起诉(南斯拉夫联邦共和国刑法典第3部分第260条),而不是因南斯拉夫联邦共和国刑法典第1部分第260条规定的罪行而受到起诉。根据该条第二部分和第三部分作出的判决总数是根据第一部分第260条作出的判决总数的两倍。然而,作为合格条件纳入该法的情况不能适用于绝大多数罪行,也不能成为这些罪行的一种“标准规范”。应承认构成某些类型罪行绝大多数特征的要素是一项罪行的基本要素。在这方面,作者认为,诸如大量砍伐这样的指标应被视为非法砍伐的犯罪因素。将“简单”的非法砍伐森林除罪化,对《行政违法法》第8.28条第1部分和第2部分的处罚也进行修改:增加罚款,实施基本的替代处罚,如社区服务,以及以没收工作工具或行政犯罪对象的形式进行补充处罚。西伯利亚联邦大学学报。人文与社会科学2021 14(5):702-717©西伯利亚联邦大学。*通讯作者E-mail: ir-vic02@yandex.ru, sstarovatova@sfu-kras.ru ORCID: 0000-0002-9179-1113 (Shishko);0000-0002-3394-9728 (Starovatova)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。