scholarly journals TO THE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOGNITION OF MEDICAL WORKERS BY CRIMINAL SUBJECTS, PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 238 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

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 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.


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.


Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 83-96
Author(s):  
V. B. Khatuev

Without knowledge of history, without a deep retrospective analysis of any legal institution it is impossible to imagine the ways for its further improvement. This is quite true of the institute of murder by mother of her newborn child. This paper attempts to investigate the evolution of criminal responsibility for the murder of a newborn child by the mother, to establish the attitude of the legislator to this type of crime at different stages of development of the Russian criminal legislation — from the time of Ancient Russia to the present. To this end, the main historical legislative acts on the regulation of criminal law against this act are analyzed.The problem of the considered type of murder is extremely relevant. In the Russian doctrine of criminal law there are two positions concerning Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation providing the softened criminal responsibility for this crime. According to one of them, the article is relevant but it needs to be improved; according to the second point of view, it is subject to exclusion and the guilt of such a murder should be criminalized on general grounds for a classified murder. The author of the article speaks in favor of the latter point of view.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
A. L. Santashov ◽  
◽  
N. М. Efremova

The subject of research in the article was the theoretical and applied problems of the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to those sentenced to imprisonment. The author addresses the legal aspects of the phenomenon under study, analyzes current trends in criminal policy and foreign experience. It has been established that in most countries compulsory medical measures are considered as a type of other criminal law measures (security measures). The purpose of the study is to give an objective description of the relevant means of differentiation and individualization, to identify gaps and shortcomings in the regulatory framework and to formulate proposals for improving legislation in the designated area. The results of the study was a scientifically based evaluation of the work of the domestic legislator on the regulation of the use of compulsory medical measures in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Penal Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
E. N. Barkhatova

The paper is devoted to determining the moment of criminal responsibility and its content. The positions existing in science and practice are analyzed. The point of view on the occurrence of criminal responsibility at the moment when a person is being charged with a crime is substantiated. This opinion is supported by an analysis of Art. 299 and 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The relationship between the characteristics of the subjective side of the crime and the emergence of criminal responsibility is demonstrated. The content of criminal responsibility has been examined both in the criminal law and in the criminal procedure aspect. The emergence and termination of criminal responsibility, as well as its content, are examined, inter alia, through the prism of the grounds for relief from it provided for in Sec. 11 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Other measures of a criminal legal nature have been studied as constituting criminal responsibility. The issue of the possibility or impossibility of including them in the content of criminal responsibility has been resolved. The classification of the components forming the content of criminal responsibility is proposed. The definition of criminal responsibility is formulated, which, according to the author, should be enshrined in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-159
Author(s):  
T. D. Ustinova

Taking into account recent changes in criminal legislation, the paper critically analyzes the features of a newly introduced crime in the criminal code, such as encouraging to commit suicide or assisting with suicide (article 110.1). Special attention is given to the methods of encouraging and facilitating suicide in terms of their validity, accuracy, content and the need to list them in the criminal law. Examples of excessive detail in the formulation of certain criminogenic characteristics are given, which contradicts the principles of legal technique. These include features such as persuasions, suggestions, advice, instructions, information, and a promise to conceal the tools or means of committing suicide. The elements of these crimes are considered in detail from the point of view of their relevance and reflection of the degree of public danger of the committed acts. This statement refers to such characteristics of victims that aggravate criminal responsibility, such as the age of a minor, the state of pregnancy, financial or other dependence on the perpetrator. The author proposes solutions for the classification of disputable situations when the crimes in question are committed against minors, the insane, or persons suffering from mental disorders. The paper considers cases when the studied crimes may be committed by a criminal community, and lists options for the classification of what was done. Special attention is given to the classification of encouragement to commit a terrorist act by self-detonation. The issue of responsibility of a minor who encourages a minor to commit suicide or contributes to his / her suicide has been raised as a matter of discussion. Proposals are made to improve the disposition of the criminal law norm. The author expresses reproaches to the notes to article 110.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides exemption from criminal responsibility in the commission of the investigated crime, and proposes a new edition of notes, which must be placed after the text of article 110.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account characteristics of the main and aggravated offenses.


Author(s):  
Александр Михайлович Смирнов

В статье актуализируется вопрос замены наименования ст. 37 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации «Необходимая оборона» на «Необходимую защиту» как более четкого с точки зрения языка закона и юридически грамотного. Приводятся научно обоснованные аргументы в пользу подобного изменения в российский уголовный закон. Отмечается, что оборона, по своей сути, это военный термин, содержание которого выходит за пределы нормативных границ реализации действий в состоянии самозащиты права, регламентированного в данной статье. О защите правового статуса личности, интересов общества и государства от общественно опасного посягательства говорится в диспозиции данной статьи. Вместе с тем Конституция Российской Федерации предоставляет каждому лицу право на самостоятельную защиту, а не самостоятельную оборону своих прав и свобод в различных сферах жизнедеятельности всеми не запрещенными законом способами (ч. 2, ст. 45). Именно о защите, а не обороне социальных благ и интересов говорится в Европейской конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод (ч. 2 ст. 2 Раздел I). С содержательной точки зрения оборона предполагает совершение подготовительных, заблаговременных действий, а также контрнаступление (нападение на противника, его полную ликвидацию), что с законодательной точки зрения выступает превышением нормативных границ необходимой обороны, согласно действующей редакции рассматриваемой уголовно-правовой нормы. Помимо этого в науке уголовного права и ряде других отраслей юридической науки вопросы реализации необходимой обороны рассматриваются в рамках правового института «самозащиты права». The article updates the issue of replacing the name of Art. 37 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Necessary Defense» to «Necessary Protection» as the most correct in terms of the language of the law and legally competent. Scientifically grounded arguments are presented in favor of such a change in the Russian criminal law. It is noted that defense, in its essence, is a military term, the content of which goes beyond the normative boundaries of the implementation of actions in the state of self-defense of law, regulated in this article. The disposition of this article speaks about the protection of the legal status of the individual, the interests of society and the state from socially dangerous encroachment. At the same time, the Constitution of the Russian Federation grants each person the right to independent defense, and not independent defense of their rights and freedoms by all in various spheres of life, in ways not prohibited by law (part 2, article 45). It is about the protection, not the defense of social benefits and interests that is said in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Part 2 of Art. 2 Section I). From a substantive point of view, defense involves the commission of preparatory, early actions, as well as a counteroffensive (attack on the enemy, his complete elimination), which from a legislative point of view is an excess of the normative boundaries of necessary defense, in accordance with the current version of the criminal law in question. In addition, in the science of criminal law and a number of other branches of legal science, the implementation of necessary defense is considered within the framework of the legal institution of «self-defense of law».


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-284
Author(s):  
INESSA PETROVA ◽  
◽  

The article considers some features of the unified state registers that are the subject of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reveals the content of each designated feature of the concept under study, which allowed us to formulate a definition of the unified state registers. The systematization of the unified state registers is given, based on their classification on various grounds. Attention is drawn to the peculiarities of criminal law protection of relations in the field of maintaining unified state registers, for the understanding of which it is necessary to know the regulatory legislation, since the disposition of the criminal law norm provided for in Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is of a blank nature. The study shows that a clear definition of unified state registers allows us to assess from a legal point of view which of them are the subject of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is reflected in the correct qualification of criminal acts that infringe on relations in the field of maintaining unified state registers. The purpose of the study is to clarify the features of criminal law protection of relations in the field of maintaining unified state registers through the prism of understanding some of the characteristic features of unified state registers as the subject of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The conducted research allowed us to formulate the author's definition of the unified state registers, to clearly identify the features inherent in the unified state registers, which allows us to give a legal assessment of acts containing signs of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis of the work is a synergetic approach, implemented through structural analysis and effective synthesis through the study of certain aspects of the criminal law phenomenon under consideration. The practical significance of the work consists in the possibility of distinguishing the attribution of unified state registers to the subject of a crime under Article 2853 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from unified state registers that are not such, which will eventually be reflected in a clear distinction between criminal acts and other illegal ones.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document