非法采伐国家重点保护植物行为的出罪机制

The Exclusion Mechanism for Illegal Logging of Nationally Protected Plants from Criminal Liability

  • 摘要: 危害国家重点保护植物罪的抽象危险犯化导致非法采伐国家重点保护植物行为的入罪泛化。这种入罪泛化的困境由作为主流的制度或秩序法益观而非生态主义法益观所引发。生态主义法益观的合理内核在于强调生态环境的保护理念,但其赋予生态环境以主体地位并不妥当。以双重价值性为核心的人本主义法益观既能克服关联性或可还原性模式所带来的判断模糊问题,也能有效协调经济价值和生态价值的关系进而符合法益概念的价值面和存在面条件。据此,对经济价值和生态价值造成的价值损害是判断非法采伐国家重点保护植物行为是否出罪的关键。基于事后和事前行为的二分框架,价值损害的判断需注意事后行为的价值恢复和事前行为的价值损害之间的抵消作用。前者以价值恢复是否可弥补价值损害作为出罪依据,讨论的是移栽恢复情形。对其而言,位于“应罚性”阶层之后的“需罚性说”是其法理基础,根据前提性、客观性和主观性三要件进行自然人实体出罪、程序出罪等的综合判断;后者以价值损害是否轻微作为出罪依据,讨论的是非移栽恢复情形。对其而言,应注重国家重点保护植物分类分级下的实质解释出罪。二者相结合,可纠正非法采伐国家重点保护植物行为的入罪泛化。

     

    Abstract: The characterization of the crime of endangering nationally protected plants as an abstract dangerous offense has led to the excessive criminalization of illegal logging of nationally protected plants. This overcriminalization arises from the mainstream legal interest perspective that prioritizes institutional or systemic order over ecological values. While the ecological legal interest perspective rightly emphasizes environmental protection, its attribution of legal subjectivity to ecological systems is untenable. A humanistic legal interest framework centered on dual values (economic and ecological) not only resolves the ambiguity inherent in correlational or reducible judgment models but also harmonizes economic and ecological values, satisfying both the normative and ontological dimensions of the legal interest concept. Consequently, the assessment of whether illegal logging of nationally protected plants should be excluded from criminal liability hinges on the extent of damage to these dual values. Under the post-facto and pre-facto behavioral dichotomy, evaluating value impairment must account for the offsetting effect between value restoration (post-facto) and value damage (pre-facto). For post-facto scenarios (transplantation-based restoration), exclusion from liability depends on whether restoration sufficiently compensates for damage. This aligns with the "doctrine of necessity for punishment," which operates after establishing the "necessity of punishment" and requires a holistic evaluation of substantive exclusion (under criminal substantive law) and procedural exclusion (under criminal procedural law) based on preconditions, objectivity, and subjectivity. For pre-facto scenarios (non-transplantation cases), exclusion relies on whether the value impairment is de minimis, necessitating substantive interpretation guided by the classification and grading system for nationally protected plants. Together, these approaches address the overcriminalization of illegal logging of nationally protected plants.

     

/

返回文章
返回