PROBLEMS OF LEGAL REGULATION OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSPORT SECURITY REQUIREMENTS VIOLATION

2018 ◽  
pp. 58-68
Author(s):  
L.Y. Larina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Security Requirements ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legislative Structure ◽  
The Individual

The study of the problems of legislative regulation of criminal responsibility for transport security requirements violation is due to the necessity to ensure it as part of national security. The purpose of the study is to identify the shortcomings of the legislative structure of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, preventing its effective application in practice, and suggest ways to overcome them. In the research on the basis of comparison of the content of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the norms of the Federal Law “On transport security” and Decrees of the government of the Russian Federation analyzed some blank signs of transport security requirements violation. In the study we identify deficiencies of the legislative construction of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the necessity of its correction, and formulate proposals for changing the individual characteristics and the sanctions of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In particular we discuss the proposal to change the sanctions of part 1 of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the inconsistency with the sanction of part 1 of article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, it is proposed to expand the range of subjects of crime under part 2 of article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Criminal infraction as a mean of differentiating criminal responsibility and punishment

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 62-67
Author(s):  
E. A. BABAYANTS ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Discussions caused by the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of a new category of offenses – criminal infraction which can occupy an intermediate link between an administrative offense and a criminal offense – do not stop. The article reveals the concept of a criminal infraction, lists its main features, considers the feasibility of introducing this category into domestic criminal legislation. A brief analysis of the legislation of a number of foreign countries is also given, the possibility of applying such experience in Russian conditions is assessed. The conclusion is formulated that it is necessary to recognize as fair the arguments challenging the necessity of adopting the draft law in the form in which it was submitted for consideration by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the fact that in those countries where the category of criminal offense was introduced, a fundamental reform of the criminal legislation was required: a total revision of the norms of the existing criminal legislation or the adoption of a separate Code of criminal infractions (for example, in Kyrgyzstan). Based on this the draft law under consideration appears to be a half-measure, which will lead to the complication of the existing legal regulation. The most correct way to resolve the problem under consideration would be to reduce the number of minor offenses in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals The Basis for Exemption from Criminal Responsibility

2018 ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. V. Blagov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Body ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article considers the reason, adequate cause, justifying exemption from criminal responsibility. In the criminal law literature there are numerous decisions on this issue, but their main body alone can not explain why a person is exempted from criminal responsibility. The author concludes that the basis for such liberation must be sought in the personality of the culprit. Under current criminal legislation, justifying the exemption from criminal responsibility can only be elimination or significant reduction in the public danger of the person who committed the crime. In the future, it is necessary to formulate the relevant provisions of the criminal law so that the basis for this exemption is only elimination of the public danger caused by the individual. Accordingly, Art. 76. 2 and part 1 of Art. 90 are subject to exclusion from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and, on the contrary, inclusion in the chapter on the exemption from criminal responsibility of the relevant provisions of Art. 80.1 and part 1 of Art. 81 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals RULES ON INCHOATE CRIME IN THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

2016 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Василий Некрасов ◽  
Vasiliy Nekrasov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Tools And Techniques

The article analyzes the issues of differentiation of responsibility and norm design technique on inchoate crime in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Belarus. The author examines the legislative definition of preparation for a crime, attempted crime and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose. As a result of the study the author has found out the main methods and means of legislative technique, used by the Belarusian legislator. These are abstract and casuistic methods, the terminology of the criminal law and several others. Comparison of legal regulation of norms on unfinished crime in the Criminal code of the Republic of Belarus and the Criminal code of the Russian Federation has allowed to identify gaps made by the legislators of both countries in application of specific tools and techniques of legislative drafting. Court practice of the Republic of Belarus in cases of preparation for a crime and attempted crime also was analyzed in present article. The author has evidentiated the means of differentiation of the responsibility for committing inchoate crime, used by the Belarusian legislator. The definitions “inchoate crime” and “stage of the crime” were also analyzed in present study. As a conclusion the author has made the recommendations for improving the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on regulation of criminal responsibility for an inchoate crime.

Trends of the Development of Criminal Law at the Modern Stage

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Алла Гравина ◽  
Alla Gravina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Stream ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyses the modern criminal law, factors having negative effect on its development according with social, political and economic needs in the Russian Federation. Humanism is the main stream determining these trends. The author treats exercise of the principle of humanism in General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The work provides criminal statistics of the recent years. It pays particular attention to the reasons disturbing stability of law, leading to excess of legal regulation and excess of repressiveness of criminal law. It is impossible to predict the trends of criminal law without taking into account the political, social, economic development of the society, which determine the criminal policy of the country. The stability of law is also determined by them. The main methods of criminal policy are criminalization, decriminalization, penalization and depenalization. The article considers influence of criminalization and decriminalization on criminal law. The main trends in the development of criminal law is the further differentiation of criminal responsibility and expanding the list of forms of punishment not connected with isolation of guilty person from a society; introduction of less severe punishment. Some forms of differentiation of criminal liability such as — returning of administrative prejudice to criminal law, transfer of certain types of punishment to the category of other measures of criminal law applicable to the exemption from criminal liability; forecasting of introduction some new types of offences to the Criminal Code as well as support of the preparation of the Concept of modernization of criminal law.

scholarly journals A New Kind of Exemption from Criminal Responsibility: the Theoretical, Legislative and Enforcement Aspects

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-166
Author(s):  
N A Egorova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference

Questions about the place of norms about exemption from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine in the system of criminal law institutions, the difference of judicial fine from other criminal law measures, the grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility under article 76.2 of the Criminal code, and the appointment of a judicial fine are considered. It is stated that the basis of a judicial fine may only be established by court fact of the crime of a certain category, therefore it is difficult to explain the appointment of this measure to a person suspected of committing a crime; the purpose of restoring social justice when releasing from criminal responsibility with the appointment of a judicial fine is not achieved. A critical analysis of the resolution of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from June 27, 2013 No. 19 «About application by courts of the legislation regulating the grounds and procedure of exemption from criminal responsibility» (new edition) in the explanation concerning the mentioned exemption from criminal responsibility is done. It is concluded that the appearance of the considered norms in the Russian criminal law reflects not only the search of more flexible methods of criminal law impact and new criminal law measures, but also about the failure of the state and society in solving the problem of crime prevention. Legal regulation of judicial fine in the future should be more detailed, the scope of application of article 76.2 of the Criminal code is narrower, and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation should pay more attention to the interpretation of article 76.2, 104.4 and 104.5 of the Criminal code.

Features of professional psychological selection, as an integral part of the system of primary prevention of occupational deformity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. V. Martirosova ◽  
◽  
A. M. Ksenofontov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Selection For ◽  
Internal Affairs ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Selection Of

The article deals with the issues of professional psychological selection in the internal Affairs bodies as an integral part of the system of measures to prevent professional deformation in service collectives. The implementation of the measures organized on the basis of monitoring of data received by psychologists of internal Affairs bodies is aimed at maintaining and improving the efficiency of the police. The purpose of this area of work of psychologists is to equip police service teams with reliable employees who meet the requirements of the modern legal state. The presented materials consider the practice of implementing by police psychologists the decree Of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 06, 2012 No. 1259 «on approval of the Rules of professional psychological selection for service in the internal Affairs bodies of the Russian Federation». The materials are consistent with the results of research conducted by Russian and foreign researchers. The conclusions are based on a comparative analysis of the results of the work of the Commission on psychological selection of the regional Department of the Ministry of internal Affairs. Describes some of the individual characteristics of the persons who were refused admission to the service. Individual factors that hinder the process of effective adaptation in service teams are listed, as well as the role of early maladaptive schemes in the process of adaptation. Individual and environmental factors of influence on the formation and development of deforming influence on employees in the course of performance of official activities are presented, based on the analysis of incidents that occurred in collectives in the period 2018–2020. The article deals with the actual difficulties of practical implementation of psychological selection for service as the basis for early prevention of professional deformation in the service collectives of internal Affairs bodies.

Administrative prejudice in cases of petty theft (the Article 7.27 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses and the Article 158.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): how the big data of judicial acts reflect humanization and quality of justice

2021 ◽  
pp. 81-124
Author(s):  
Egor Viktorovich Trofimov ◽  
Oleg Gennad'evich Metsker ◽  
David Dokkaevich Paskoshev
Keyword(s):  
Big Data ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Penalty

The subject of this article is the public relations arising in the context of committing petty theft, as well as research means and methods for assessing the optimization of legislation and law enforcement. Due to the specific structure of administrative prejudice, the article presents the methodology and results of the analysis big data of judicial acts in cases of petty theft (the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses and the Article 158.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) for assessing the quality of justice and optimization of legal regulation. The research is founded on the original interdisciplinary methodology, which contains the indicator approach along with the set of legal and computer aided techniques, including intellectual text and data mining, as well as machine learning. It is demonstrated that the judgments of conviction do not have considerable differences in the semantics and logical complexity of decision-making in comparison with the ruling on imposition of administrative penalty; the logic of making decisions on the choice of administrative or criminal penalty for petty theft varies, whereby the choice of administrative penalty is more differentiated. Despite the identity of acts related to administrative prejudice, their regulation by different laws leads to different enforcement results. Administrative-tort regulation is more optimal. Administrative responsibility for petty theft is rather humane for the society overall, although for victims, criminal responsibility appears to be more humane. Having analyzed the array of information, the author extracts certain knowledge on the administrative-tort and criminological characteristics of petty theft alongside peculiarities of court proceeding and imposition of penalties, as well as concludes on applicability of the developed methodology towards analyzing big data of case law on administrative and criminal offenses.

On some topical issues of exemption from criminal responsibility under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael' Babaev ◽  
Emin Babaev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Correct Interpretation ◽  
Topical Issue ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to the topical issue of legal regulation of exemption from prosecution. At the same time, all types of exemption from criminal responsibility, also on the grounds of incentive norms, are analyzed in a certain sequence. The authors noted that a fair decision of the court, under which a person could be released from criminal responsibility, depends to a large extent on the correct interpretation of the appraisal concepts used by the legislator in the relevant criminal and legal norms containing the conditions of exemption from criminal responsibility.

THE VALUE OF LOVE IN THE SYSTEM OF FORMATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL MATURITY OF THE EDUCATOR

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (10(79)) ◽  
pp. 12-18
Author(s):  
G. Bubyreva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

The existing legislation determines the education as "an integral and focused process of teaching and upbringing, which represents a socially important value and shall be implemented so as to meet the interests of the individual, the family, the society and the state". However, even in this part, the meaning of the notion ‘socially significant benefit is not specified and allows for a wide range of interpretation [2]. Yet the more inconcrete is the answer to the question – "who and how should determine the interests of the individual, the family and even the state?" The national doctrine of education in the Russian Federation, which determined the goals of teaching and upbringing, the ways to attain them by means of the state policy regulating the field of education, the target achievements of the development of the educational system for the period up to 2025, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 4, 2000 #751, was abrogated by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 29, 2014 #245 [7]. The new doctrine has not been developed so far. The RAE Academician A.B. Khutorsky believes that the absence of the national doctrine of education presents a threat to national security and a violation of the right of citizens to quality education. Accordingly, the teacher has to solve the problem of achieving the harmony of interests of the individual, the family, the society and the government on their own, which, however, judging by the officially published results, is the task that exceeds the abilities of the participants of the educational process.  The particular concern about the results of the patriotic upbringing served as a basis for the legislative initiative of the RF President V. V. Putin, who introduced the project of an amendment to the Law of RF "About Education of the Russian Federation" to the State Duma in 2020, regarding the quality of patriotic upbringing [3]. Patriotism, considered by the President of RF V. V. Putin as the only possible idea to unite the nation is "THE FEELING OF LOVE OF THE MOTHERLAND" and the readiness for every sacrifice and heroic deed for the sake of the interests of your Motherland. However, the practicing educators experience shortfalls in efficient methodologies of patriotic upbringing, which should let them bring up citizens, loving their Motherland more than themselves. The article is dedicated to solution to this problem based on the Value-sense paradigm of upbringing educational dynasty of the Kurbatovs [15].

Emergency powers of the authorities of the constituent units of the federation (states) in Russia, the USA and Brazil amid the spread of a new coronavirus infection

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-107
Author(s):  
Alexander Merkulenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Emergency Powers ◽  
Lack Of Control ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government

Due to the new coronavirus pandemic, high alert regimes were introduced across the Russian Federation in spring 2020. These emergency regimes were established exclusively by the state bodies of the Russian Federation’s constituent units – federal authorities did not introduce their own emergency regimes. This decentralized strategy of fighting the pandemic was also introduced by the USA and Brazil. Their states, without the sanction of the federal government, and in the case of Brazil, ignoring its bans, set emergency restrictions similar to those in Russia. The legal regulation of emergency regimes existed before 2020, when constituent units of the federation (states) actively used their emergency powers. However, the regimes introduced during the fight against the pandemic were slightly different to previous ones. The restrictions on rights and freedoms within these regimes were so severe that not only their proportionality was questioned, but there were also doubts as to whether the regional level of the government had the authority to establish such strict restrictions. In addition, the pandemic exposed old problems and revealed new shortcomings in the legal regulation of emergency regimes: lack of control over the realization of the emergency regime by legislative (representative) authorities, and gaps in legislative regulation – notably in the establishment of possible restrictions and of a mechanism for scrutinizing their proportionality. All this raised questions about the proportionality of the established restrictions. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation resolved a very insignificant amount of the problems. While the United States and Brazil faced similar issues, the practice of scrutinizing implemented restrictions in these countries was more common. This article takes domestic and foreign experiences into account, while examining certain aspects of the establishment and the operation of regional emergency regimes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document