Research On The Criminal Target Of Crime Of Destroyingd Wildlife Resourcesr

With regard to the definition of criminal targets for the destruction of wild animal resources crimes,there is currently a misunderstanding of mechanization,which has led to deviations in the practice of the destruction of wild animal resources,and has violated the original intention of criminal law to protect wildlife,resulting in a series of cases such as the Shenzhen Parrot case,Cases such as the circus case were found not guilty but were found guilty.The criminal target of the crime of sabotaging wild animal resources is "wild animals".The possible meanings of "wild animals" have a broad and narrow understanding.The main difference lies in whether artificial domestication and breeding of wild animals belong to "wild animals".Based on the comparison of artificially domesticated wild animals and pure wild animals,it can be concluded that they cannot be generalized.To define the criminal target for the crime of destroying wildlife resources,it is necessary to correctly understand the legal interests of the crime of destroying wildlife resources.The legal interests protected by such crimes should be wildlife resources,not abstract national protection orders or management systems for wildlife.Compared with wild animals in the wild,artificially domesticated wild protected animals have different ecological significance.Only artificial wild animals that are equivalent to or close to wild animals in the ecological sense should be protected by criminal law.The current “Judicial Interpretation of Animal Cases” is too mechanical and one-size-fits-all,but it is not desirable to simply abolish it.It is necessary to combine the purpose,difficulty,quantity,and generation of artificial reproduction of a species,the significance of the protection of species,and the preciousness and endangerment of wildlife.Judgment,in principle,the state-level protected wild animals for artificial domestication and the wild animals of CITES Appendix I shall be subject to criminal targets.In principle,national secondary protected wild animals for artificial domestication and breeding and the wild animals of CITES Appendix II shall not belong the target of crime should be adjusted according to the actual situation of the specific species.At the same time,it may legislate to stipulate that the illegally hunting,killing,purchasing,selling,and transporting artificially-produced wild animals shall bear the burden of proof for illegally hunting,killing,purchasing,selling,and transporting wild animals that are artificial domesticated wild animals.Preventing lawbreakers from taking the opportunity to "wash white" and pushing them to legally carry out artificial domestication and breeding of wild animals.Before judicial interpretation and legislation are amended,the judicial organ shall insist on substantive interpretation theory,objective interpretation determinism,and common-senseist position,correctly understand the legal interests of destructive wildlife resources crimes,and reasonably define the scope of wild animals.Non-criminalization of acts that do not infringe the interests of legal interests.