中国野生动物犯罪中的行政法认知--基于2021-2022年间的案例分析

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY International Journal of Law Crime and Justice Pub Date : 2024-04-25 DOI:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100666
Junliang Chen
{"title":"中国野生动物犯罪中的行政法认知--基于2021-2022年间的案例分析","authors":"Junliang Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The crime of endangering rare and endangered wild animals has gradually become frequent crimes in China, but the legal cognitive error in such cases has not been resolved. In this crime, the scope of the objects, wild animals, depends on prepositive laws such as “the List of Wild Animals under the State Key Protection Plan”, which leads to the separation between the social meaning of “rare and endangered” and the legal meaning of “under the State Key Protection Plan”. Since the structure of basic facts and normative values has been broken, the perpetrator's understanding of the precondition laws should be regarded as pure legal cognition. Considering the specific cognitive difficulty of administrative laws, the level of this mens rea should be raised to clear awareness. This paper examines judicial and prosecutorial cases in China from 2021 to 2022, aimed at determining whether the lack of illegal perception can serve as a defence and what type of evidence is required to prove it. The empirical findings indicate that the clarity of legal cognition differs significantly between cases of guilt and innocence, and that the most crucial proof relies on the perpetrator's comprehension of the scope of protected wildlife, which is a purely legal matter instead of a social one.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46026,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Crime and Justice","volume":"77 ","pages":"Article 100666"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognition of administrative laws in wildlife crimes in China–Based on cases analysed between 2021–2022\",\"authors\":\"Junliang Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100666\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The crime of endangering rare and endangered wild animals has gradually become frequent crimes in China, but the legal cognitive error in such cases has not been resolved. In this crime, the scope of the objects, wild animals, depends on prepositive laws such as “the List of Wild Animals under the State Key Protection Plan”, which leads to the separation between the social meaning of “rare and endangered” and the legal meaning of “under the State Key Protection Plan”. Since the structure of basic facts and normative values has been broken, the perpetrator's understanding of the precondition laws should be regarded as pure legal cognition. Considering the specific cognitive difficulty of administrative laws, the level of this mens rea should be raised to clear awareness. This paper examines judicial and prosecutorial cases in China from 2021 to 2022, aimed at determining whether the lack of illegal perception can serve as a defence and what type of evidence is required to prove it. The empirical findings indicate that the clarity of legal cognition differs significantly between cases of guilt and innocence, and that the most crucial proof relies on the perpetrator's comprehension of the scope of protected wildlife, which is a purely legal matter instead of a social one.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law Crime and Justice\",\"volume\":\"77 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100666\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law Crime and Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061624000181\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Crime and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061624000181","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

危害珍稀、濒危野生动物罪在我国已逐渐成为多发犯罪,但该类案件的法律认知误区一直没有得到解决。在本罪中,客体野生动物的范围取决于 "国家重点保护野生动物名录 "等前置性法律,导致 "珍稀濒危 "的社会含义与 "国家重点保护 "的法律含义相分离。由于基本事实与规范价值的结构被打破,行为人对前提性法律的理解应被视为纯粹的法律认知。考虑到行政法的特殊认知难度,应当将这种犯罪意图提升到明确认知的层面。本文对 2021 年至 2022 年中国的司法和检察案例进行了研究,旨在确定缺乏违法认知是否可以作为辩护理由,以及需要何种证据来证明。实证研究结果表明,在有罪和无罪的案件中,法律认知的清晰度存在显著差异,最关键的证据依赖于行为人对受保护野生动物范围的理解,这是一个纯粹的法律问题,而不是社会问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cognition of administrative laws in wildlife crimes in China–Based on cases analysed between 2021–2022

The crime of endangering rare and endangered wild animals has gradually become frequent crimes in China, but the legal cognitive error in such cases has not been resolved. In this crime, the scope of the objects, wild animals, depends on prepositive laws such as “the List of Wild Animals under the State Key Protection Plan”, which leads to the separation between the social meaning of “rare and endangered” and the legal meaning of “under the State Key Protection Plan”. Since the structure of basic facts and normative values has been broken, the perpetrator's understanding of the precondition laws should be regarded as pure legal cognition. Considering the specific cognitive difficulty of administrative laws, the level of this mens rea should be raised to clear awareness. This paper examines judicial and prosecutorial cases in China from 2021 to 2022, aimed at determining whether the lack of illegal perception can serve as a defence and what type of evidence is required to prove it. The empirical findings indicate that the clarity of legal cognition differs significantly between cases of guilt and innocence, and that the most crucial proof relies on the perpetrator's comprehension of the scope of protected wildlife, which is a purely legal matter instead of a social one.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice is an international and fully peer reviewed journal which welcomes high quality, theoretically informed papers on a wide range of fields linked to criminological research and analysis. It invites submissions relating to: Studies of crime and interpretations of forms and dimensions of criminality; Analyses of criminological debates and contested theoretical frameworks of criminological analysis; Research and analysis of criminal justice and penal policy and practices; Research and analysis of policing policies and policing forms and practices. We particularly welcome submissions relating to more recent and emerging areas of criminological enquiry including cyber-enabled crime, fraud-related crime, terrorism and hate crime.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Corrigendum to: ‘Male Rape Myths: Examining the role of Victim Empathy and Socio-demographics in a cross-sectional sample of UK Adults’ [Int. J. Law, Crime and Justice, 76, 100645] On the decision-making framework for policing: A proposal for improving police decision-making Does performance appraisal fairness alleviate police officers’ organizational silence? -Considering the moderating effect of trust- Criminal justice response in Cape Verde: Understanding punishment severity in case of gender-based violence against women
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1