野生动物犯罪与动物受害者:改善香港环境正义的途径

A. Whitfort
{"title":"野生动物犯罪与动物受害者:改善香港环境正义的途径","authors":"A. Whitfort","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1677055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Wildlife crimes are often argued to be victimless, due to the anthropocentric view of crime that dominates policy and policing discourse. Falling outside the normative criminal justice lens, wildlife crimes are not frequently brought to court, and a lack of expertise in policing and prosecuting cases impairs their recognition as serious crimes. When wildlife offences are prosecuted, the tendency to try cases in the magistrates’ courts compounds problems with a lack of judicial exposure to this specialised form of crime and limits development of judicial expertise in the field. Lacking legal standing in the court process, harms caused to endangered animals (as individuals or species) are often marginalised from consideration in sentencing decisions. Recognised only as legal property, animals may be forfeited or returned to their lawful owners, in accordance with the court’s findings. Focusing on recent developments in criminal justice in Hong Kong and Scotland, this article argues that a more effective justice response to wildlife crime permits recognition of the interests of animals, as victims, in wildlife offences. In both jurisdictions, statements establishing the impact of wildlife crimes are utilised by prosecutors in their presentation of cases at court. Armed with knowledge of the role of animals as individual and species victims of crime, sentences may be passed that take appropriate regard of wild animal suffering, their monetary and conservation value, and the impact of their loss on biodiversity. The use of these statements is allowing for better-informed sentencing decisions in individual cases and improved environmental justice.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wildlife Crime and Animal Victims: Improving Access to Environmental Justice in Hong Kong\",\"authors\":\"A. Whitfort\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13880292.2019.1677055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Wildlife crimes are often argued to be victimless, due to the anthropocentric view of crime that dominates policy and policing discourse. Falling outside the normative criminal justice lens, wildlife crimes are not frequently brought to court, and a lack of expertise in policing and prosecuting cases impairs their recognition as serious crimes. When wildlife offences are prosecuted, the tendency to try cases in the magistrates’ courts compounds problems with a lack of judicial exposure to this specialised form of crime and limits development of judicial expertise in the field. Lacking legal standing in the court process, harms caused to endangered animals (as individuals or species) are often marginalised from consideration in sentencing decisions. Recognised only as legal property, animals may be forfeited or returned to their lawful owners, in accordance with the court’s findings. Focusing on recent developments in criminal justice in Hong Kong and Scotland, this article argues that a more effective justice response to wildlife crime permits recognition of the interests of animals, as victims, in wildlife offences. In both jurisdictions, statements establishing the impact of wildlife crimes are utilised by prosecutors in their presentation of cases at court. Armed with knowledge of the role of animals as individual and species victims of crime, sentences may be passed that take appropriate regard of wild animal suffering, their monetary and conservation value, and the impact of their loss on biodiversity. The use of these statements is allowing for better-informed sentencing decisions in individual cases and improved environmental justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1677055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1677055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

野生动物犯罪通常被认为是无受害者的,因为人类中心主义的犯罪观点主导了政策和警务话语。野生动物犯罪不属于规范的刑事司法范畴,不经常被送上法庭,而且缺乏执法和起诉案件的专业知识,损害了它们被视为严重犯罪的认识。在起诉野生动物罪行时,倾向于在地方法院审理案件的做法使问题复杂化,因为缺乏对这种特殊形式犯罪的司法接触,限制了该领域司法专门知识的发展。由于在法庭程序中缺乏法律地位,对濒危动物(作为个体或物种)造成的伤害往往在量刑决定中被边缘化。根据法院的裁决,动物只被视为合法财产,可能会被没收或归还给它们的合法主人。本文关注香港和苏格兰刑事司法的最新发展,认为对野生动物犯罪的更有效的司法反应是承认动物作为野生动物犯罪受害者的利益。在这两个司法管辖区,检察官在法庭上陈述案件时都使用了确定野生动物犯罪影响的陈述。了解了动物作为犯罪的个体和物种受害者的作用后,可以适当考虑野生动物的痛苦、它们的货币和保护价值以及它们的丧失对生物多样性的影响来作出判决。使用这些陈述可以在个别案件中作出更明智的量刑决定,并改善环境司法。
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
Wildlife Crime and Animal Victims: Improving Access to Environmental Justice in Hong Kong
Abstract Wildlife crimes are often argued to be victimless, due to the anthropocentric view of crime that dominates policy and policing discourse. Falling outside the normative criminal justice lens, wildlife crimes are not frequently brought to court, and a lack of expertise in policing and prosecuting cases impairs their recognition as serious crimes. When wildlife offences are prosecuted, the tendency to try cases in the magistrates’ courts compounds problems with a lack of judicial exposure to this specialised form of crime and limits development of judicial expertise in the field. Lacking legal standing in the court process, harms caused to endangered animals (as individuals or species) are often marginalised from consideration in sentencing decisions. Recognised only as legal property, animals may be forfeited or returned to their lawful owners, in accordance with the court’s findings. Focusing on recent developments in criminal justice in Hong Kong and Scotland, this article argues that a more effective justice response to wildlife crime permits recognition of the interests of animals, as victims, in wildlife offences. In both jurisdictions, statements establishing the impact of wildlife crimes are utilised by prosecutors in their presentation of cases at court. Armed with knowledge of the role of animals as individual and species victims of crime, sentences may be passed that take appropriate regard of wild animal suffering, their monetary and conservation value, and the impact of their loss on biodiversity. The use of these statements is allowing for better-informed sentencing decisions in individual cases and improved environmental justice.
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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
期刊最新文献
Lost in Translation? Why Outdated Notions of Normativity in International Law Explain Germany’s Failure to Give Effect to the Ramsar Convention of 1971 Wild Things: Animal Rights in EU Conservation Law Addressing Illegal Transnational Trade of Totoaba and Its Role in the Possible Extinction of the Vaquita Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity
×
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