SYSTEM OF THE GENERAL PART OF THE CRIMINAL CODEOF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2020 ◽  
pp. 62-70
Author(s):  
E. V. Shchelkonogova

The article examines the General part of the Criminal Code. It is considered from the point of view of a systematic approach, questions are raised about the meaningful relationship between the norms of the General Part and the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The historical aspect of the formation of the current structure of the Code is given, and the question of whether the General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are identical parts or not. The sections of the General Part are analyzed in order to identify their functional load and significance for law enforcement.

2020 ◽  
pp. 62-70
Author(s):  
E. V. Shchelkonogova

The article examines the General part of the Criminal Code. It is considered from the point of view of a systematic approach, questions are raised about the meaningful relationship between the norms of the General Part and the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The historical aspect of the formation of the current structure of the Code is given, and the question of whether the General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are identical parts or not. The sections of the General Part are analyzed in order to identify their functional load and significance for law enforcement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-70
Author(s):  
E. V. Shchelkonogova

The article examines the General part of the Criminal Code. It is considered from the point of view of a systematic approach, questions are raised about the meaningful relationship between the norms of the General Part and the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The historical aspect of the formation of the current structure of the Code is given, and the question of whether the General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are identical parts or not. The sections of the General Part are analyzed in order to identify their functional load and significance for law enforcement.


Author(s):  
A. I. Rarog

The paper raises the question of the inevitability not only of judicial (in specific criminal cases) errors, but also of law enforcement errors (the practice of incorrect application of the criminal law established spontaneously or at the direction of higher judicial authorities), as well as legislative errors of political, system or technical nature. Considering the specific law-making mistakes made in the norms of the General Part and in each of the structural elements of many of the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the author notes the appreciable work of the legislator to eliminate errors with satisfaction. At the same time, the paper provides specific examples of errors that are repeatedly noted in the special literature, still yet to be corrected, and suggests ways to correct them, in particular, amending the Regulations of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation regarding the procedure for discussing bills.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 159-170
Author(s):  
I. V. Pantyukhina ◽  
L. Yu. Larina

The paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of article 210.1 "Occupation of the highest position in the criminal hierarchy", which was introduced in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by Federal law No. 46-FZ of 01.04.2019. The authors considered the construction of this norm from the point of view of the elements of the crime and the coordination of these features with the provisions of the General part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a result of a systematic study of the norms of the Russian criminal law, comparison with foreign experience (Georgia), and analysis of law enforcement practice, the discrepancy between the new criminal law norm and the provisions of certain institutions of criminal law was revealed. In particular, the content of article 210.1 contradicts certain principles of the criminal law (articles 6, 7 of the Criminal Code), the basis of criminal liability (article 8 of the Criminal Code), the norms of the Institute of preparation for a crime (part 1 of article 30 of the Criminal Code), as well as the goals of criminal punishment (part 2 of article 43 of the Criminal Code). To eliminate the identified shortcomings, the authors propose to include in the disposition of article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation an act in the form of using the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. The proposed changes (including an act in the form of "use of the position») make it possible to prosecute persons both permanently and temporarily performing the functions of such persons, to leave outside the scope of its application persons who fully walked away from crime and not in any way affect criminal damage. They will allow you to bring the rule into compliance with the traditional understanding of the offense and those provisions of the General part of the Criminal Code, in which the regulated norms in the current edition are not made consistent.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 46-52
Author(s):  
D. V. Golenko

The article discusses current trends characteristic of the Russian criminal law and the practice of its application in the fi eld of combating terrorism. The acts provided for in Chapter 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 205205.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) are analyzed in detail from the point of view of the location of the legislative material, as well as the structures of the elements of the crimes. Special attention is paid to the structure of Articles 205205.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (dispositions, sanctions, notes). The types of structures of terrorist crimes at the time of completion are considered. The article analyzes the current practice of applying this Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as offi cially published judicial statistics. The study allowed us to identify existing contradictions within the criminal law and formulate some recommendations for improving legislation in the field of combating terrorism.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Dvoryanskov ◽  
Elena Antonyan ◽  
Sergey Borovikov ◽  
Natal'ya Bugera ◽  
Aleksandr Grishko ◽  
...  

The textbook is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, federal laws, international legal acts. The concepts, categories and institutions of the General Part of criminal Law are considered in detail. All changes in the criminal legislation have been taken into account, and the latest scientific, educational and methodological literature on criminal law has been used. The material is presented in an accessible form for effective assimilation of the training course. The publication contains regulatory legal material as of May 1, 2021. Meets the federal state educational standards of higher education of the latest generation in the areas of training 40.03.01 "Jurisprudence", 40.05.01 "Legal support of national security", 40.05.02 "Law enforcement", 40.05.03 "Forensic examination", 40.05.04 "Judicial and prosecutorial activities". For students, cadets, trainees studying in these areas of training, judges, law enforcement officers, as well as for anyone interested in criminal law issues.


Author(s):  
Sergey Kartashov

We point out that the danger is not the relapse of the crime, but the identity of the criminal, since the punishment for the person who committed the crime for the first time and the criminal who committed the crime again must be different, otherwise it would be contrary to the provision of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Principle of justice”, which requires taking into account the degree of committed socially dangerous crime and the identity of the perpetrator. It is reflected that since 2012 there has been a revival of “special relapse” in some corpus delicti (Articles 131, 264.1, etc.). In addition, we clarify that, in a certain sense, relapse can also include corpus delicti with administrative prejudice, but their reflection in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contradicts the concept of crime (Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), but directly on administrative prejudice in the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation domestic legislator did not mention anything. We note that in the current legislation it is necessary to return to the use of the term “relapsed criminal”, since it is precisely the number and categories of crimes that indicate the public danger of the identity of the perpetrator. We also denote that the relapse of crimes does not increase the degree of public danger of a particular crime, but testifies to the public danger of the identity of the perpetrator committing a certain act prohibited by criminal law.


2021 ◽  
pp. 99-115
Author(s):  
Sergei Gennadevich Losev ◽  
Viktor Ivanovich Morozov

The object of this research is the legal relations arising in the context of implementation of the norms of criminal law of the Russian Federation that establish liability for repeated administrative offenses. The subject of this research is the practice of application the criminal law norms of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods that regulate the institution of administrative prejudice, and acts of interpretation of the Russian Constitution, in which the Supreme Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation deals with the problems of the use of separate articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that contain the norms with administrative prejudice, and parts of interrelation between the institutions of administrative prejudice and recurrence of offenses. The subject of this research is also justification of existence the institution of administrative prejudice in the national criminal law, main flaws in interpretation of the articles that describe the norms of the institution of administrative prejudice in the text of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into consideration all shortcomings in interpretation of the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the author offers unified definition of the composition with administrative prejudice. It is suggested to reintroduce the concept of recurrent offense in the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the fact of administrative liability, outstanding criminal record, or criminal record that has not been expunged. The case if the legislator deems it necessary to take into account not identical, but homogeneous recurrence should be stipulated in the note to the article of the Special Part. The author also offers to include the Article 16.1 into the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the following wording: “The repeated offense is considered an act committed by a person who has previously been subjected to administrative penalty for similar type of offense, unless stipulated otherwise in the corresponding articles of the Special Part of the effective Code”.


Author(s):  
I. I. Golubov

The article defines the list of norms of Chapter 31 of the Special part of the criminal code of the Russian Federation, which establish responsibility for crimes against justice committed with the use of violence against law enforcement officials during pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case. Considered contained in article 296 and 313 of the criminal code the criminal code, the types of violence dangerous to life or health, and not dangerous to life or health; short brief legal description; the proposed main ways of solving the need for additional qualification of crimes under part 3 and 4 of article 296, part 3 of article 313 of the criminal code in conjunction with the norms of Chapter 16 of the criminal code. It is proved that the qualification of violent acts in the considered group of crimes is subject to the General requirements for the legal assessment of criminal violence, in particular, the rules for comparing the severity of sanctions of a special norm and the norms of Chapter 16 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation. It is also proved that the sole criterion of the severity of sanctions in the classification of the specified group of crimes is not an additional qualification is required and in cases when established in the articles of this Chapter aggravating circumstances not covered by the provisions of the standards, which establishes liability for the offence under the special rule, where violence is a way of committing it.


Author(s):  
Elena Shchelkonogova

The article raises the problem of systematic interpretation of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since fair enforcement of criminal law articles is impossible without understanding their sense intended by the legislator. One of the effective methods for identifying it is systematic interpretation of the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. They are considered as elements of the system, their logical relations with each other and with the articles of the General Part of the Criminal Code are identified. Systematic consideration of the Special Part of the Criminal Code induction and deduction allowed formulating its current definition based on the fundamental difference between the rule of law and the article of the law. Identification of the systemic features of the Special Part helps distinguishing it from structure and classification. The article also pays attention to the problem of determining the various grounds for division of legislative material of the Special Part; the meaning of such concepts as «criminal legislation system» and «criminal law system» is delimited. The question is raised whether it is correct to speak about the system of crimes enshrined in the Special Part of the Criminal Code.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document