scholarly journals Topical issues of the improvement of the procedure of registration and counting of restrictive, coercive and disciplinary measures and punishments

Author(s):  
Kirill Igorevich Nagornov

The author considers the issue of the necessity and feasibility of regulating the procedure of counting a restrictive measure as a court-imposed disciplinary punishment, counting the served disciplinary term as a term of punishment, and counting the served term as a disciplinary measure. The research subject is the particular provisions of the current legislation regulating the institution of coercive measures and the judicial practice of imposition of restrictive and disciplinary measures on minors, and particular provisions of foreign legislation regulating this sphere. The research methodology is based on the combination of methods of scientific cognition, including the comparative-legal, formal-legal, and statistical methods, and the methods of logic analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction and generalization. The author suggests amending chapter 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with a provision regulating the procedure of registration and counting of a restrictive measure when imposing a disciplinary measure, and the term of a served part of the disciplinary measure when defining the term of punishment, and the formal criteria of transforming the imposed punishment into a coercive measure.   

Author(s):  
Alexander V. Shesler ◽  
◽  

The article examines criminal acts, with which the law associates certain criminal legal consequences. The aim of the article is to substantiate the identification of various criminal acts and show their specificity in comparison with crimes. The research is based on the domestic criminal legislation, materials of judicial practice and the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany. The research methods are: the method of comparative law, which allowed comparing the provisions about criminal offenses in the 1960 Criminal Code of the RSFSR and in the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of Germany; the method of document analysis, which made it possible to analyze the judicial practice and proposals of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of provisions on criminal offences in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; the formal-logical method that made it possible to analyze the content of the norms of the Criminal Code about criminal acts. The article concludes that, in addition to crimes, criminal acts should include: a criminal offence, which entails criminal liability in the form of replacing punishment with a more severe one (fine, compulsory labor, correctional labor, restriction of freedom as the main type of punishment, forced labor) or criminal liability in the form of the cancellation of any type of probation (suspended sentence, parole, deferred sentence, deferred sentence for drug addicts); a minor act; socially dangerous behavior of persons who are not subjects of a crime due to their minor age or insanity; innocent infliction of harm. The article shows the specificity of a misdemeanour, consisting in the fact that this act is not socially dangerous, does not contain signs of a crime, violates the liability of the convicted person to be subject to limitations arising from the court-appointed punishment or type of probation (suspended sentence, parole, deferred sentence, deferred sentence for drug addicts). It is substantiated that a minor act should be referred to circumstances that exclude the criminality of an act due to the absence of public danger, an essential feature of a crime. It is argued that acts, provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed in a state of insanity and entailing compulsory medical measures, should not be subject to criminal law. The article criticizes the judicial practice of a broad interpretation of the commission of a crime by a group of persons, according to which it is not only a co-execution, but also any execution of the objective side of the crime by several persons, of which only one can be the perpetrator. It is argued that causing harm due to the non-compliance of the psychophysiological qualities of a person with the requirements of an extreme situation does not apply to innocent infliction of harm.


2021 ◽  
pp. 96-103
Author(s):  
N. Yu. Borzunova ◽  
O. S. Matorina ◽  
E. P. Letunova

The authors of the article consider the criminal- legal characteristics of crimes against representatives of the authorities, in particular, encroachment with the purpose of causing harm to the health, personal integrity, honor and dignity of a representative of the authorities. The definition of the term “representative of the authorities”is given. The main characteristics of a representative of the government are analyzed. Statistical data on the number of convictions and types of punishments in accordance with the provisions of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 318, 319) are summarized. Examples of judicial practice are considered. The ways of improving the criminal legislation are proposed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-106
Author(s):  
V.V. Kusakin ◽  

The article is devoted to the analysis of Article 350 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for criminal liability for violation of the rules of driving or operating cars, the evolution of this article and the problems of sentencing under it are considered. One of the suggestions for improving this article is to change its sanction, which will eliminate the identified significant legal gap. The author conducted a comprehensive analysis of various aspects related to the criminal violation of traffic safety rules and the operation of military vehicles, and proposed the author's solution to the problematic aspects. The study used specific dialectical methods: comparative, hermeneutical, discursive, formal-legal, as well as some sociological methods: observation, methods of expert assessments and analysis. The provisions contained in the materials of the article can be used to improve the current criminal legislation and to develop explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in reviews of judicial practice.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 150-158
Author(s):  
K. V. Dyadyun

The paper analyzes the objective and subjective features of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The problems of interpretation and application of this norm are investigated, taking into account the goals and objectives underlying its creation. Special legislation regulating the sphere under study is considered. The studied imperfections of regulation of the subject of the crime (the relationship between the concepts of alcoholic and alcohol-containing products), problems of distinguishing acts from related compounds (article 151 of the Criminal Code), the complexity of the classification. The analysis of crime-forming features is presented: "repeatability", "retail", and "sale". Imperfections of the legislative and law enforcement approach in this aspect are revealed. In particular, the key features and correlation of the concepts of wholesale and retail trade are analyzed; the problems of assessing what was done with remote methods of selling alcohol; the content aspects of the categories "duplicity and repetition" in the context under study. The question of the expediency of replacing the term "sale" with "illegal sale" in the disposition of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is studied. The regulation of features of the subject of the studied elements is considered, and existing problems are identified. The question of the expediency of norms with administrative prejudice in the criminal law was raised. Some problematic aspects of sentencing for retail sale of alcoholic products to minors are identified; and issues of establishing the subjective side of the elements. The paper analyzes the opinions of various authors regarding the possibility of improving the norm of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the study of statistical data and materials of judicial practice. The author indicates the need for an integrated approach in the fight against alcohol abuse among young people. The conclusion is presented regarding the validity of the existence of the studied norm in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the current version.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
N. N. Korotkikh

The article analyzes some of the controversial, in the opinion of the author, recommendations of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of 15.05.2018 «On the practice of the courts applying the provisions of paragraph 6 Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation». Lowering the category of crime always requires clear criteria by which the actions of the defendant could be qualified with a change in the gravity of the crime. Based on examples from judicial practice, the thesis is substantiated that “taking into account the factual circumstances of the case” and “the degree of its public danger” are evaluative e criteria and do not always allow to decide the validity of the application of part 6 article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The discrepancy between some of the recommendations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is shown. It is concluded that it is impossible to exempt a person from criminal liability on the grounds specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Andrey L. Ivanov ◽  

The article substantiates the solution of some of the issues of qualification of murder discussed in theory and practice in order to use human organs or tissues, the results of a study of judicial practice, in which clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this topic were applied.


Author(s):  
Tatyana A. Plaksina ◽  

Federal Law No. 538-FZ of 30 December 2020 substantially tightened the sanctions of the libel article, which previously contained only fines and compulsory labour, by including com-pulsory labour, arrest and imprisonment in most of them. The explanatory memorandum to the bill explained the changes by the need to provide the court with the choice of fair punish-ment, without specifying this provision in detail. As part of the research described in the article, statistics for the Russian Federation for 2013-2020 were taken from the reports of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to study the practice of punishment for defamation. The analysis showed that law enforcers used the potential of sanctions of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code in their previous edition to a very limited extent. This was reflected in the high share of fines among penalties imposed, as well as in insignificant amounts of fines even for qualified and especially qualified types of libel, despite the fact that sanctions provide for high maxi-mum fine limits - from RUB 500,000 in part 1 of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code to RUB 5 million in part 5. In particular, the share of fine among penalties imposed for simple libel was over 85%, and the average fine was equal in 2018 to RUB 11,500. - 11.5 thousand roubles, in 2019 - 13.7 thousand roubles, in 2020. - 16.3 thousand roubles. In 2018, the average fine for public libel (part 2, article 128-1 of the Criminal Code) was 19,500 rubles; in 2020 - 23,100 rubles. - The sanction allowed for a fine of up to 1 million roubles, while the sanction allowed for a fine of up to 1 million roubles. Moreover, over a quarter of those convicted for especially qualified defamation under part 5 of article 128-1 of the Criminal Code were sentenced to a fine of 5,000 rubles, i.e., one thousand times less than the maximum limit established by the sanction. Only in single cases of slander convictions, the fine exceeded 100 thousand rubles. The establishment of custodial sentences for qualified and especially qualified types of defamation seems excessive: a verbal crime against a person's honour and dignity does not require such a harsh criminal legal response. Moreover, the legislator has designed sanctions with too broad a framework, fraught with the risk of arbitrariness in sentencing and the for-mation of contradictory judicial practice (for example, under part 5 of article 128-1 of the RF Criminal Code, both a fine of 5 thousand rubles, and imprisonment for the period of 5 years can be imposed). The inclusion of arrest in the sanction cannot be considered justified, as this type of punishment has not been introduced yet. The optimum way to improve the sanctions for the part 2 to 5 parts of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code of the RF would be to enhance them with correctional labour and restriction of freedom. These types of punishments corre-spond to the typical level of public danger of qualified and especially qualified types of slan-der and perpetrators of such deeds. Their inclusion in the sanctions would compensate for the disadvantages of the latter, related to the restrictions enshrined in the law on imposing com-pulsory works and large fines.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 86-98
Author(s):  
E. V. Peysikova ◽  
◽  
Yu. I. Antonov ◽  

The article is devoted to the analysis of judicial practice in cases of the thefts provided by item «g» of part 3 of article 158 and articles 1593 and 1596 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The article notes the challenges in applying these rules in practice; demonstrates their restrictive features with regards to the doctrine of Criminal law. The article is written for the purpose of uniform application of these norms in practice after entry into force of the Federal Law of 23 April 2018, № 111-FZ.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Вячеслав Воронин ◽  
Vyacheslav Voronin

Part 3 of article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the common criteria of individualization of punishment the nature and degree of public danger of committed crime in each criminal case. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal practice of this provision, as well as the construction of clarification on the issue of taking into consideration the public danger, which will be useful for the judiciary. For this purpose the author supposes to solve following problems: analysis of dogmatic ideas about the nature and degree of public danger; search for factors that courts consider in determining public danger in judicial practice; analysis of the survey data of judges from different regions of the country. As a result the author concludes that the nature of public danger depends on the object of the offense and cannot influence on individualization of punishment, because it was considered by the legislator when constructing the corresponding article of the Special Part and therefore should be excluded from Part 3 of art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Degree of public danger when individualizing is determined subject to the objective and subjective elements of a crime. The author proposed to make recommendations on considering into account degree of public danger in the judgment 22.12.2015 No. 58 adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On practice of criminal sentencing by courts of the Russian Federation”.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document