ES ir JAV numatytos teisinės atsakomybės už žiaurų elgesį su gyvūnais lyginamoji analizė
Kukanauza Rokas |
Žiaurus elgesys su gyvūnais – plačiai paplitusi pasaulinė problema, kurios neišvengia nei ES valstybės, nei JAV. Kai kurių žmonių požiūris į gyvūnus kaip į nuosavybę daro didžiulę įtaką žiauriam elgesiui su gyvūnais. Šį požiūrį pakeisti – sudėtinga, todėl spręsti žiauraus elgesio su gyvūnais problemą būtina pasitelkiant teisinę atsakomybę. Deja, žiauraus elgesio su gyvūnais apibūdinimas, jo baudžiamasis teisinis reglamentavimas, priklausomai nuo kiekvienos valstybės tradicijų, kultūros – skiriasi. Todėl gali nutikti taip, kad už tą patį žiaurų elgesį su gyvūnu atskirose ES valstybėse ir JAV bus taikoma skirtinga teisinė atsakomybė. Šio darbo tikslas – išanalizuoti ir palyginti kai kurių ES valstybių ir JAV valstijų teisinį reguliavimą, numatantį baudžiamąją atsakomybę už žiaurų elgesį su gyvūnais. Iškelta hipotezė, kad Lietuvoje numatyta baudžiamoji teisinė atsakomybė už žiaurų elgesį su gyvūnais per švelni, todėl visapusiškai neapsaugo gyvūnų nuo žiauraus elgesio grėsmės, pasitvirtino. Tyrimas atskleidė, kad konkrečios žiauraus elgesio sąvokos neįtvirtinimas teisės aktuose teisingas, nes žmogaus požiūris į gyvūnus ir elgesį su jais nuolat kinta. Taikant baudžiamąją atsakomybę analizuotose ES valstybėse didžiausias dėmesys skiriamas padariniams. Kai kuriose ES valstybėse įtvirtinami žiauraus elgesio su gyvūnais veiką kvalifikuojantys požymiai. JAV žiaurus elgesys su augintiniais baudžiamas griežčiau, nei su ūkiniais gyvūnais. JAV nėra bendro sutarimo koks žiaurus elgesys atitinka vieną ar kitą baudžiamųjų nusižengimų ar nusikaltimų grupę. Probleminis kaltės įrodinėjimas, nes ji gali lemti ar asmuo už žiaurų elgesį atsakys kaip už baudžiamąjį nusižengimą ar kaip už nusikaltimą. Analizuotos ES šalys savo įstatymuose numato didesnius bausmių dydžius, nei dauguma JAV valstijų. Tačiau laisvės atėmimo bausmės terminai JAV valstijose. Aptartose ES valstybėse (išskyrus Lietuvą) ir JAV numatytas privalomas gyvūno konfiskavimas, taip pat įtvirtintas draudimas tam tikrą arba visą laiką įsigyti ir laikyti gyvūnus. Atlikus tyrimą rekomenduojama tobulinti Lietuvos teisinį reglamentavimą: papildyti BK 310 straipsnį 2 dalimi, papildyti BK nauju 68 (3) straipsniu ir pakeisti LR gyvūnų gerovės ir apsaugos įstatymo 4 straipsnio 4 dalį.
Although the exact extent of animal cruelty worldwide is unknown because many cases of animal cruelty simply go unreported, scientists say that animal cruelty involves billions of animals. Thus, animal cruelty is a widespread global problem that neither EU countries nor the United States escapes from. Some people's view of animals as property has a huge impact on animal cruelty. Changing this attitude is difficult, so it is necessary to solve the problem of animal cruelty by means of legal responsibility, i.e. establishing appropriate and sufficient legal regulation in this area. Unfortunately, the description of animal cruelty and its criminal legal regulation, depending on the traditions and culture of each country, are different. Therefore, it may happen that the same animal cruelty will be subject to different legal liability in individual EU countries and in the USA. In contrast to Lithuanian scientists, a number of representatives of foreign legal doctrine have spoken on the issues of animal cruelty, including aspects of legal responsibility. However, a comparative analysis of the legal liability, as well as criminal liability, for animal cruelty in the EU and the US has not been done. Although animal cruelty can be subject to administrative and criminal liability, due to the limited scope of this work, the aim is to conduct a comparative analysis of EU and US legal regulation establishing criminal liability for animal cruelty. Thus, the purpose of this work is to analyse and compare the legal regulation of some EU states (Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Italy, France) and the US states, which provide for criminal liability for animal cruelty. To achieve the goal, four tasks were set: to reveal the concept of cruelty to animals, to analyse the peculiarities of the regulation of criminal responsibility for cruelty to animals in certain EU countries, to analyse the peculiarities of the regulation of criminal responsibility for cruelty to animals in the USA, to compare the penalties applicable in some EU countries and the USA for cruelty to animals. The hypothesis that the criminal liability for cruelty to animals provided in Lithuania is too lenient and therefore does not fully protect animals from the threat of cruelty has been confirmed. The study revealed that not enshrining the specific concept of cruelty in legislation is correct, because people's attitudes towards animals and their treatment are constantly changing. The analysed EU states do not differentiate criminal liability for cruel treatment of farm animals and pets. The analysed EU states do not differentiate criminal liability for cruelty to farm animals and pets (although in Italy animal ethology is taken into account). In these states, criminal liability arises for the cruel treatment of animals by torturing him, which caused him injuries and death (torture)., i.e. the main focus is on the consequences. In other cases, the opinions of the states differ. In most cases, individuals are not subject to criminal liability for other acts of brutal behaviour (they are considered an administrative offense). In some states, the characteristics qualifying the act of animal cruelty are established. Whether a crime has been committed, for which the applicable criminal liability is decided in each specific case, taking into account objective and subjective signs. Acts of cruelty to an animal that resulted in its death, maiming, or other there must be a causal connection, and the perpetrator's cruel treatment of the animal must be conscious, manifesting with intent, i.e. he must understand that he is being cruel and that there will be consequences for the animal. In the US states, cruelty to pets is punished more severely than cruelty to farm animals. Cruelty to animals that results in serious injury or death is generally considered a crime. In all other cases, the analysed criminal act is considered a misdemeanour. In the event of repeated animal cruelty, the criminal liability becomes more severe. However, each state has its own criteria for animal cruelty. Since there is no unified list of forms of brutality in the US states, there is no general agreement on what brutality corresponds to one or another group of misdemeanours or crimes. Criminal liability for cruel behaviour is applied only when there are objective and subjective signs. Proving guilt is problematic in the US states, as it can determine whether a person will be charged with a misdemeanour or a felony for brutal behaviour. The analysed EU countries have higher penalties in their laws than most US states. However, the terms of imprisonment in the US states are longer - more often, the duration of this sentence exceeds 1 year. Both in the EU and in the USA, cruelty to animals can be punished with public works, a fine, with the exception of Lithuania, can be imposed with a prison sentence. In the mentioned EU countries (except Lithuania) and the USA, mandatory confiscation of the animal is provided for, as well as a ban on acquiring and keeping animals for a certain or all time. In order to effectively protect animals from cruel behaviour, it is suggested to improve the legal regulations of the Republic of Lithuania. First of all, it is recommended that the country establish the feature qualifying this crime in Article 310, Part 2 of the Criminal Code. In order to ensure that an animal that has experienced cruel treatment does not remain with its torturer, it is proposed to confiscate it in all cases, without exception, from a person who has been convicted under Article 310 of the Criminal Code. To that end, to amend Article 4, Part 4 of the Law on Animal Welfare and Protection of the Republic of Lithuania. In order to protect animals from repeated manifestations of cruel behaviour and in order to tighten criminal liability for cruel treatment of animals, the legislator should be proposed to the person convicted under Article 310 of the Criminal Code, to establish a ban on acquiring and keeping animals in the future. For that purpose, supplement the Criminal Code with a new Article 68 (3).