In recent years,certain cases related to the illegal hunting of beneficial animals listed on the national register as having significant ecological,scientific,and social value has sparked public criticism due to the incongruity between the assigned criminal liability and the corresponding penalties.In the sentencing of illegal hunting cases,there exist issues including the excessive criminalization of behavior,the absence of criminal intent and obstructive grounds,and the inversion of administrative and criminal penalties.The root of these phenomena and problems lies in the failure to independently assess the criminal unlawfulness in administrative offences.The criteria for determining administrative offences should not deviate from the fundamental principles of clarity,moderation,and supplementation in criminal law.The recently revised Wildlife Protection Law has introduced new provisions regarding basic principles,protected species assessment,and remedies for wildlife damages.The judicial interpretations of illegal hunting offences should align with these changes.Guided by the human-oriented legal interest theory in ecological studies,emphasis should be placed on the criminal unlawfulness of"damaging wildlife resources."The interpretation of"prohibited hunting periods,areas,or the use of prohibited tools for hunting"should highlight violations of national regulations.There should be a reassessment and correction of the judicial interpretation of the"serious circumstances"element,potentially achieved through the addition of administrative penalty prerequisites,habitual offender clauses,provisions for habitual violations,and non-statutory purpose elements.This approach aims to narrow down the grounds for establishing the offence,delineating the cumulative offence of minor harm through both circumstances and outcomes,thus avoiding simply treating administrative violations as criminal offences.
维普
万方数据