scholarly journals ON THE LEGISLATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF TERRORIST CRIMES IN THE SPECIAL PART OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (ON THE EXAMPLE OF ARTICLES 205–205.6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

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.

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4(73)) ◽  
Author(s):  
A.I. Ivanova ◽  
E.V. Silchenko

In the article, from the point of view of criminal law, reveals aspects of the current trends in the unreasonable attraction of medical workers criminally liable under article238 of the criminal code. The authors also justify the position of not applying the provisions of article 238 of the criminal code of the Russian Federation in relation to this category of subjects


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-163
Author(s):  
PETRUSHENKOV ALEXANDR ◽  

Objectives. The goal of scholarly research is to develop proposals for amendments in criminal law General and Special part of Criminal code of the Russian Federation governing self-defense. The scientific article identifies legislative gaps and contradictions that hinder the effective implementation of the necessary defense and require prompt solutions. Methods. The article analyzes such concepts as “self-defense”, “public assault”, “excess of limits of necessary defense”, “violation of the conditions of lawfulness of necessary defense”, “surprise assault”, “rights defending or other persons, interests of the state”. The use of logical and comparative legal methods allowed us to develop proposals for making changes to the criminal law norms that establish the necessary defense. Conclusions. The article shows the conflicts and gaps legislative recognition of self-defense and, in this regard, the complexity of its implementation in the articles of the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation and practical application. Changes are proposed to the criminal law norms regulating the necessary defense, both in the General and in the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. Sense. The content of the scientific article can be used by the teaching staff of higher educational institutions when teaching the course “Criminal law”. The results of the work can be useful to persons who carry out legislative activities in the field of criminal law. The leitmotif of the article can be used in the preparation of dissertation research.


Author(s):  
V.I. Tikhonov

The Institute of mitigating and aggravating circumstances is presented not only in the norms of the General part of the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The application of these circumstances in the construction of individual elements of a crime allows the legislator to differentiate the orientation of the criminal law influence in relation to a specific crime element or in qualifying the fact of life reality. In law enforcement practice, proving the subjective side of a crime often causes significant problems. At the same time, motivation and achievement of a specific goal of committing a crime can have both a mitigating and an aggravating effect. The subjective side has a significant impact not only on the design of the offenses of the Special Part of the Criminal Law, but also on the process of sentencing through legal regulation of circumstances mitigating or aggravating criminal punishment. In this regard, both general and mandatory features of the subject of the crime also affect the procedure for establishing guilt and determining punishment in accordance with the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Of scientific interest is the study of the influence of the process of legal regulation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in terms of the impact on this process of subjective signs of criminal behavior.


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 2020 (12-3) ◽  
pp. 230-234
Author(s):  
Natalia Martynenko ◽  
Anatoly Maydykov

The article analyzes the ideas of the Russian scientist in the field of criminal law Ivan Yakovlevich Foinitsky (1847-1913) on the establishment of criminal liability for kidnapping. The influence of I.Y. Foinitsky's ideas on the modern concept of criminal law protection of a person from abduction is shown. It is concluded that the norm on responsibility for the abduction of a person existing in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, its location in the structure of the norms of the Special Part, in many respects includes the provisions laid down by I.Y Foinitsky.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 135 ◽  
pp. 04066
Author(s):  
Alexandra Brovkina ◽  
Victor Vezlomtsev ◽  
Svetlana Zakharova ◽  
Olga Shuranova ◽  
Yuri Truntsevsky

The article presents the questions of constructing a system of criminal penalties under the legislation of the Russian Federation, the problems of imposing various types of punishments taking into account the rules for constructing criminal law sanctions. Changes and additions, various types of criminal penalties, including the content of sanctions in the articles, lead to an imbalance in the principles of their construction. The punishment system is currently in need of reform. An analysis of the sanctions of the articles of a special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation revealed inconsistencies with the requirements of legislative equipment in their development, which creates serious difficulties in the appointment of sentences by the courts. Penalties under criminal law sanctions include punishment in the form of punishment, forced labor, imprisonment for a specified period. The legislation does not take into account the nature and degree of threat to crimes committed in the formation of sanctions articles. Criminal law and criminal law protection, and criminal procedural requirements, and punishments. In accordance with the peculiarities of the formation of the punishment system, the creation of criminal sanctions, as well as taking into account the goals of punishment in the domestic criminal law, which allows us to develop recommendations on the preparation of sanctions for articles of the criminal code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Yu. K. Krasnov

Introduction. May and June 2018 saw intensi­fied discussions in Russia around the issue of confis­cation of property obtained by criminal means. These discussions arose after several initiatives of legisla­tors who advocated the strengthening of the role of this institution of criminal law in the legal practice in Russia and after the Supreme Court of the Rus­sian Federation summarized the experience of the use of confiscation in the practice of Russian courts and formulated some recommendations for the courts in the decision of the plenary session of June the 14th .  Materials and methods. The article uses a number of research methods and techniques to ana­lyze the problem such as analysis that allows isolat­ing the trends in the development of the institution of confiscation; comparison which allows evaluating homogeneous processes at different stages of the in­stitute of confiscation of property acquired by crimi­nal means, and generalization which is necessary to summarize the results of the research.  Research results. The use of the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means in the legal practice of Russia has passed several stages. The modern stage began after the institution was restored in the criminal code of the Russian Fed­eration by the Federal law of July 27, 2006 № 153FZ and section VI of the Criminal Code was supple­mented by Chapter 15.1 “Confiscation of property”. This Chapter contains the legislative definition of the confiscation of property (article 104.1 of the Crimi­nal Code) and an indication of the subject of confis­cation, its types and conditions.  Based on the decisions of the plenums of the Su­preme Court of the Russian Federation the article analyzes the practice of this institution in the activi­ties of Russian courts. 12 years of experience in the application of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code, showed that, despite the repeated explanations of the Supreme Court, which dealt with individual crimes, some of the controversial issues remained unre­solved. In this regard the Plenum of the Supreme Court introduced a number of proposals to improve the legal framework of this institution in the draft Resolution.  On June 14th , 2018 the next plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ad­opted a new detailed resolution on the practice of application of Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code and proposed detailed recommendations to improve the application of the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means in the Russian Federation, which are considered and commented on in the article.  Discussion and conclusion. Legal literature discussed the innovations in the Russian legislation related to the institution of confiscation of property obtained by criminal means caused in a very active mode. The views of the authors of articles on this is­sue can be divided into two parts with each havinga lot of supporters. According to the first of them the new place of confiscation of property among the mea­sures of criminal law is justified.  Supporters of the opposite point of view sup­port the exclusion confiscation of property from the system of measures of criminal law as they believe that the legal nature of the confiscation of property belongs to a form of criminal punishment. This is the opinion of the judges. Two-thirds of the judges believe that the confiscation of property should be considered as an additional form of punishment.


Author(s):  
Диана Викторовна Голенко

В работе исследуется структурный элемент статьи Особенной части Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации - диспозиция. Затрагивается вопрос о соотношении диспозиции статьи, диспозиции нормы и состава преступления. Уделено внимание существующим в современной доктрине уголовного права представлениям о диспозиции статьи уголовного закона, ее видах, структуре. Обращено внимание на простые, описательные, бланкетные, ссылочные диспозиции, а также на особенности их использования. Исследуются абстрактный, казуистический приемы изложения нормативного материала. Обозначены преимущества и недостатки применения законодателем тех или иных приемов, а также влияние способа изложения диспозиции на пределы судейского усмотрения при применении статей. В работе обращено внимание на тенденции, характерные для современного законодателя. The article investigates the structural element of the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - disposition. The question is raised about the ratio of the disposition of the article, the disposition of the norm and the corpus delicti. Attention is paid to the ideas exiting in the modern doctrine of criminal law on the disposition of an article of the criminal law, its types, structure. Attention is drawn to simple, descriptive, blank, reference dispositions, as well as to the features of their use. Abstract, casuistic techniques of presentation of normative material are investigated. The advantages and disadvantages of the use of these or those methods by the legislator, as well as the influence of the method of presentation of the disposition on the limits of judicial discretion when applying the articles are indicated. The article draws attention to the trends characteristic of the modern legislator.


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”.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document