INSTITUTIONS OF MULTIPLE CRIMES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PREJUDICE IN CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAW

2021 ◽  
pp. 43-47
Author(s):  
O. Yu. Savelyeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Correct Interpretation ◽  
Administrative Legislation ◽  
Special Part ◽  
General Part ◽  
Points Of View

Despite the legislator is step by step expanding the number of bodies of a crime with the sign of administrative prejudice, up to the present, the General part of the RF Criminal Code does not define administrative prejudice. It leads to the fact that the Special part of the RF Criminal Code formulates the administrative prejudice features in the bodies of crimes in different ways. In particular, only some of the bodies of crimes contain the duplicity feature as an administrative prejudice element. Within this investigation, the author considers as well the other criminal law institution – multiple crimes. It is caused by the fact that collaterally with the administrative prejudice, the liability for persons previously convicted for identical and (or) similar actions starts to be introduced. It speaks for both the reappearance of liability for special recidivism and the introduction of the criminal law category not covered by this concept. To identify the problems related to the structure of bodies of crimes with indicated signs and specify the ways for their solution, the author carried out the interdisciplinary comparison of norms of criminal and administrative legislation, analyzed doctrinal points of view, explained the position of the executor of law represented by the supreme judicial authorities, and investigated a draft law on the amendments in the RF Criminal Code. As a result of the study, the author concludes that the Special part of the RF Criminal Code formulates the administrative prejudice signs in the bodies of crimes in different ways. It complicates the correct interpretation of specified criminal law norms. Moreover, the author considers incorrect the structure of part 1 of Art. 284.1 of the RF Criminal Code, which contains both the sign of administrative prejudice and the sign of conviction for identical action. The position of the RF Government expressed in draft law No. 536-8 on the amendments in Art. 116.1 of the RF Criminal Code calls for comments as well.

Criminal Law and Procedure

Japanese Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 450-466
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Oda
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Special Part ◽  
General Part ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Terrorist Acts

The primary statute of criminal law in Japan is the Criminal Code of 1907. There are various separate laws which provide for specific crimes, generally denoted as ‘special criminal laws’. Some offences were added by way of such special laws in the recent years including the law against terrorist acts of 2019. The The Criminal Code is divided into the General Part and the Special Part. The former lays down the general principles and basic concepts of criminal law such as intention, negligence, attempt, accomplice, etc. The latter lists specific offences. Constitution guarantees the rights of defendants and suspects. Criminal procedure has become much more transparent, and better protection is given to suspects.

scholarly journals “Inconsequent Carelessness” in Modern Conditions of Criminal Legislative Reform: The Problem and Ways to Solve it

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 3-13
Author(s):  
Serhii Bahirov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Mental Attitude ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Future ◽  
General Part ◽  
Normative Models

The article highlights the problem of inconsistency of legislative provisions on careless forms of guilt,which are contained in the General Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, to the constructive peculiarity ofcriminal offenses that are provided by the Special Part of this Code.The author draws attention to the problem which emerged due to the future transfer of a significantnumber of criminal offenses from the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses to the book of criminaloffenses of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine. The vast majority of these offenses are constructed so as tohave a formal composition, to wit the consequences outside it. At the same time, the construction of acareless form of guilt and its varieties, recklessness and negligence, the normative models of which arecontained in the General Part of the draft Criminal Code of Ukraine, provides for a mental attitude to theconsequences.It is substantiated that the developers of the draft of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine will have todecide on one of the two directions of the system: either to completely abandon the criminalization ofinconsequent carelessness, leaving the legislative concept of carelessness covering only criminal offenseswith material composition, or to agree with the idea of presence of the inconsequent carelessness within theinstitute of criminal offense.Future problems with determining the form of guilt of criminal offenses are shown, if among theprovisions of the General Part of the projected Criminal Code of Ukraine there is a provision on the limitedpunishment of a careless behavior.The principle of constructing norms on criminal liability for careless acts is proposed, according towhich resultative careless delicts should be provided in the book of crimes, and careless offenses with aformal composition should be misdemeanors.In order to properly cover the provisions of the General Part of the future Criminal Code of Ukraine onthe carelessness of all constructive types of careless offenses, the author proposes to provide two types ofcareless form of guilt: resultative carelessness and inconsequent carelessness.Theoretical modeling of the relevant criminal law norms has been carried out, which will consolidate theinconsequent carelessness and its varieties.

ON THE FORMAL ASPECT OF REGULATION OF THE CRIMINAL LEGAL IMPACT IN RESPECT OF MILITARY PERSONNEL IN THE RF CRIMINAL CODE

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
R. V. Zakomoldin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Military Personnel ◽  
Military Service ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Special Part ◽  
General Part ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The paper analyzes special norms and provisions of the RF Criminal Code reflecting the specifics of criminal law impact towards such a particular subject as military personnel. The author studies the nature, meaning, and varieties of special criminal law norms. The paper highlights the diversity of such norms and their presence in General and Special parts of the criminal law. In this respect, the author explains that these norms have a dual purpose: they are applied both instead of general norms and along with them, supplementing and specifying them. The author emphasizes the certainty, necessity, and reasonability of special norms and provisions in criminal law. The study pays special attention to military criminal legislation as a special criminal legal institution and a set of special rules and provisions that allows differentiating and individualizing criminal responsibility and criminal punishment of servicemen, taking into account the specifics of their legal status and the tasks they perform in the conditions of military service. The author considers special norms and provisions of the General Part of the RF Criminal Code regulating particular military types of criminal punishment and the procedure for their imposition (Articles 44, 48, 51, 54, 55), as well as the norms and provisions of the Special Part of the RF Criminal Code on crimes against military service (Articles 331–352). Besides, the study identifies close interrelation and interdependence of special norms and provisions of the criminal law with the criminal procedure and criminal executive legislation because they are the elements of a single mechanism of criminal law impact on military personnel, and only their combination ensures the effectiveness of such impact. Based on the analysis, the author formulates the conclusions and proposals to introduce amendments and additions to the RF Criminal Code concerning military criminal legislation. First of all, the author proposes highlighting the section “Criminal liability of military personnel” and the chapter “Features of criminal liability and punishment of military personnel” in the General part of the RF Criminal Code and abandoning the provision of part 3 of Art. 331 in the Special part.

Public danger of crimes relapse

2020 ◽  
pp. 111-121
Author(s):  
Sergey Kartashov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Public ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
First Time

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.

scholarly journals The impact of administrative prejudice upon the content of penal prohibition

2021 ◽  
pp. 99-115
Author(s):  
Sergei Gennadevich Losev ◽  
Viktor Ivanovich Morozov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Record ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Subject ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

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”.

On the System of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
pp. 31-40
Author(s):  
Elena Shchelkonogova
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Law System ◽  
Special Part ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

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.

scholarly journals To the issue of the concept of general principles of imposition of sentence

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 114-118
Author(s):  
Kostyantyn Marysyuk
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Special Part ◽  
General Part ◽  
Points Of View

An attempt is made to investigate scientific approaches to the concept of general principles of sentencing. Although the general principles of sentencing are directly provided for in the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the article with the appropriate title, there are still some differences as to which provisions of this article apply to them. There are several points of view on this. According to the first - the general principles of sentencing are contained only in Part 1 of Art. 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for five separate general principles: 1) sentencing within the limits established by the sanctions of the article (sanctions of part of the article) of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for a criminal offense, except as provided in part two 53 of the Criminal Code; 2) sentencing in accordance with the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code; 3) imposition of punishment taking into account the severity of the criminal offense; 4) sentencing, taking into account the identity of the perpetrator; 5) sentencing, taking into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances. According to the second point of view, the general principles of sentencing are contained only in Part 1 of Art. 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for three general principles, ie the imposition of punishment taking into account the severity of the criminal offense, the perpetrator and mitigating and aggravating circumstances, is considered one general principle. It is concluded that the general principles of sentencing should be understood as a holistic system of general rules, which together must be guided by the court in each case of choosing the type and measure of punishment for a person guilty of a criminal offense.

CODIFICATION PROBLEMS OF NECESSARY DEFENSE AFFECTING ITS IMPLEMENTATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-163
Author(s):  
PETRUSHENKOV ALEXANDR ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Teaching Staff ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Activities

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.

MAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF ASSESSING ACTIVITIES OF MINOR IMPORTANCE OF IN MODERN CRIMINAL LAW

Law and World ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-95
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Minor Importance ◽  
Detailed Review

The research includes the full and the detailed overview of assessing activities of minor importance in Georgian Criminal Law. The Article 7 of the Criminal Code of Georgia states the following: a crime shall not be an action that, although formally containing the signs of a crime, has not produced, for minor importance, the prejudice that would require criminal liability of its perpetrator, or has not created the risk of such harm. The research includes the main criteria of defining activities as activities of minor importance. The detailed review of Georgian case law is also introduced, as well as, legislation, judicial literature and experience of the other European countries.

Formation and development of a Special part of criminal law in the period of the X – beginning of the XX century

2021 ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Ruslan G. Aslanyan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Institutional Structure ◽  
Historical Aspects ◽  
Literary Sources ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Law

The article examines the historical aspects of the formation and development of a Special part of the Russian Criminal Law. The analysis is based on legal monuments of the X - beginning of the XX century and literary sources. The research is developing in three main directions: a) the ratio of the law and other forms of expression of criminal law prescriptions (here the process of transition from customs to the law as the only means of expressing criminal law norms is revealed); 2) types and system of criminal laws (here the transition from intersectoral laws to the formation of a specialized Criminal Code is shown); 3) systematization of criminal law regulations (here the issues of classification of crimes and structuring of criminal law institutions are revealed). As the main result, it is summarized that by the beginning of the XX century, the idea of creating an independent criminal law was not only implemented in the country, but also, firstly, the principle of its pandect structure was put into practice, suggesting the isolation of its Special part in the structure of the Code and, secondly, the principle of building the most Special part, based on the institutional structure of the industry and the content of goods protected by law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document