CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIFE AND HEALTH OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ACCORDING TO STANDARDS OF MODERN CRIMINAL LAW OF PARTICULAR STATES OF THE ROMANO-GERMAN LEGAL FAMILY

The paper analyzes theoretical approaches to the differentiation of criminal liability for accepting a bribe. It also discusses the opinions of legal schol-ars, as well as the content of the current legislation as part of this study, taking into account all the changes made to it. The study notes that the im-provement of the norms of Chapter 30 of the Crimi-nal Code of the Russian Federation and the devel-opment of their system is associated with the ratifi-cation of a number of international treaties by the Russian Federation, but requires further adjustment, taking into account the principles of criminal law. The author concludes that the basis for the differen-tiation of criminal liability for accepting a bribe is the typical degree of public danger of the deed and the person who commits this criminal act. At the same time, the establishment of differentiated criminal liability is the sphere of activity of the legislator, and individualization is the sphere of activity of the law enforcement officer, which corresponds to the im-plementation of such fundamental principles of criminal law as fairness and humanism in the admin-istration of justice in criminal cases. Based on the results of the study, the author concludes the need to further improve the differentiation of criminal liability for accepting a bribe, in particular, the divi-sion of officials who have committed this crime, based on the nature of their official functions. The author considers it possible to take into account the consequences that have occurred or could have occurred as a result of a person receiving a bribe.

Download Full-text

Circumstances to Be Clarified under the Investigation of Interference into Law Enforcement Officer’s Activity

Law and Safety ◽

10.32631/pb.2021.2.12 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 81 (2) ◽

pp. 97-103

Author(s):

V. O. Gusieva

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Criminal Liability ◽

Demographic Data ◽

Criminal Proceedings ◽

Criminal Offense ◽

Enforcement Officer ◽

Criminal Offenses ◽

Procedural Costs ◽

Detailed List ◽

Law Enforcement Officer

The author has substantiated the need to establish the circumstances to be clarified and has determined their significance during the investigation. It has been emphasized that the circumstances to be clarified include the circumstances to be proved in criminal proceedings, criminal and forensic characteristics of a criminal offense. In order to determine the circumstances to be clarified during the investigation of interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer, the author has studied the circumstances to be clarified within the group of criminal offenses related to obstruction of the activities of a law enforcement officer, as well as during the investigation of interference in the activities of a forensic expert. Taking into account the specified scientific provisions, the author has defined a detailed list of circumstances to be clarified during the investigation of interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer. It has been established that the circumstances to be clarified during the interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer include: 1) circumstances related to the criminal offense, namely: time, place, situation and traces of a criminal offense, methods of its commission (preparation, direct commission and concealment), tools and means used during the interference, the scope of procedural costs; circumstances that are the basis for ceasing criminal proceedings; the reasons and conditions that contributed to the commission of a criminal offense; 2) circumstances related to the identity of the victim, including: socio-demographic characteristics of the victim, place of work, position held; official and functional responsibilities, the victim’s belonging to a law enforcement agency during the commission of a criminal offense against him; the type and scope of damage caused to the victim; 3) circumstances related to the identity of the offender, namely: socio-demographic data of the offender, physiological and psychological condition, gender, citizenship, financial status, place of work, the record of criminal conviction and the facts of bringing to administrative liability; the presence of dependent disabled people; the presence of guilt in the form of direct intent, the purpose of the action; circumstances that aggravate or mitigate the punishment of the offender are grounds for releasing from criminal liability or punishment that exclude criminal liability; presence of accomplices.

Download Full-text

Certain Aspects Of The Subjective Side Of Corpus Delicti, Committed By A Law Enforcement Officer Is Of Criminal Value

Actual problems of improving of current legislation of Ukraine ◽

10.15330/apiclu.50.3-12 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 3-12

Author(s):

I.V. Bahan

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Criminal Responsibility ◽

Constitutional Rights ◽

Strict Adherence ◽

Enforcement Officer ◽

Correct Definition ◽

Correct Determination ◽

Law Enforcement Officer ◽

Subjective Side

Annotation. Under criminal law, a person can be held liable only when he or she commits a socially dangerous act. Liability only in the presence of guilt is one of the most important principles of criminal law that underlies it. At the present stage of the development of our society, the need for strict adherence to the principle of the presumption of innocence and, at the same time, the inevitability of criminal responsibility for the perpetration of a socially dangerous act, is growing significantly. Adherence to these principles in the activities of pre-trial investigation bodies and the court will contribute to the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights and freedoms, and the correct determination of the subjective side of the crime is crucial in this respect. The subjective side of a crime is the inner side of a crime, that is, the mental activity of a person, which reflects the attitude of his / her consciousness and will to the socially dangerous act he / she commits and to its consequences. The value of the subjective side lies in the fact that due to its correct definition, the proper qualification of the act and its delimitation from other crimes is carried out, the degree of public danger of the act and the person who committed it is established, and the possibility of his/her release from criminal responsibility and punishment is resolved. The article is devoted to the investigation of the subjective side of the corpus delicti, committed by law enforcement officer is of criminal value, disclosure of its essence and content. Characteristics of the subjective side of crimes, committed by a law enforcement officer is of criminal value, in particular, guilt, motive, purpose of this category of crimes are characterized. Conclusions are made and proposals are formulated for improving the relevant criminal law provisions; various scientific researches related to this topic are examined.

Download Full-text

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENCROACHMENT ON THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER THE NORMS OF MODERN CRIMINAL LAW OF THE FAR EAST

Law Journal of Donbass ◽

10.32366/2523-4269-2020-71-2-142-150 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 71 (2) ◽

pp. 142-150

Author(s):

Volodymyr Kondratov ◽

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Far East ◽

The Far East ◽

Enforcement Officer ◽

Law Enforcement Officer

Download Full-text

PECULIARITIES OF RESPONSIBILITY OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR COMMITTING AN INTENTIONAL MURDER IN REQUIRED DEFENSE AND DETENTION OF A OFFENDER

Actual problems of native jurisprudence ◽

10.15421/3919118 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 169-173

Author(s):

N. M. Plysiuk

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Causes Of Death ◽

Law Enforcement Officers ◽

Criminal Code ◽

The Public ◽

Enforcement Officer ◽

Special Means ◽

Points Of View ◽

Law Enforcement Officer

Questions about the peculiarities of the responsibility of a law enforcement officer for committing a premeditated murder in the performance of their duties in the context of necessary defense and detention of a criminal are explored. In the science of criminal law, one of the debates is the question of recognizing the subjects of premeditated killings when exceeding the limits of the necessary defense and when exceeding the measures necessary to detain the offender of law enforcement officers. In criminal law, there are several points of view regarding the qualification of actions of a police officer in causing them harm to the detained person and in the necessary defense. What are the causes of death in case of exceeding the limits of necessary defense or in case of exceeding the measures necessary for the detention of a person who committed a socially dangerous assault by a law enforcement officer – intentional murder if the limits of necessary defense are exceeded, or in case of exceeding the measures necessary for detention power or authority. When deciding on the responsibility of a law enforcement officer in the conditions of necessary defense and detention of the perpetrator, it is necessary to establish: whether the requirements of the sectoral legislation regarding the grounds for the use of weapons, special means and physical influence measures have been met, and whether the requirement that “in case of impossibility to avoid the use of force, it shall not exceed the extent necessary to fulfill the duties assigned to the police and shall minimize the possibility of harming the offender's health to members of the public”. In compliance with both requirements, liability is excluded – such acts are not criminal. In case of non-compliance with such requirements, a law enforcement officer should be criminally responsible for a crime in the field of official activity. In addition, one should not forget that one of the conditions for the lawfulness of causing harm to a person in detention is the time of detention – immediately after the commission of the encroachment. With this in mind, in the deliberate killing of a detainee immediately after committing an encroachment on him, the actions of a law enforcement officer should be qualified under Art. 118 of the Criminal Code, and in the case of a similar act, if the detained person, for example, is wanted, for a similar crime – no. In such a case there will be, in the presence of signs, excess of power (Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

Download Full-text

PROBLEMS OF DISTINCTION OF INTENTION AND NEGLIGENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW

Наука. Исследования. Практика: сборник избранных статей по материалам Международной научной конференции (Санкт-Петербург, Декабрь 2020) ◽

10.37539/srp294.2020.63.73.008 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Сайд-Магомед Исламович Мусаев

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Practical Importance ◽

Great Practical Importance ◽

Enforcement Officer ◽

Law Enforcement Officer ◽

The Law

Определение формы вины в различных составах преступлений - одна из ключевых проблем уголовного права, имеющая большое практическое значение. Особенно острой эта проблема становится, когда выбор между умыслом и неосторожностью должен быть сделан правоприменителем в условиях законодательной неопределенности и различия в позициях высших судов. Determining the form of guilt in various offenses is one of the key problems of criminal law, which is of great practical importance. This problem becomes especially acute when the choice between intent and negligence must be made by the law enforcement officer in conditions of legislative uncertainty and differences in the positions of the higher courts.

Download Full-text

Problems of Defining the Concept of «Change of Situation» in Art. 80.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Legal Linguistics ◽

10.14258/leglin(2020)1503 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 13-16

Author(s):

Nadezhda Tydykova

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Russian Federation ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Main Idea ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Enforcement Officer ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Law Enforcement Officer ◽

The Law ◽

Clear Idea

The article discusses the concept of “change of situation” as the basis for release from punishment. The author adheres to the position of the need to use in the law only those concepts that are revealed through signs that are understandable to everyone. Article 80.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is examined as a norm that does not meet this criterion. The author claims that the content of this norm does not allow a clear idea of the content of the concept. As evidence, numerous examples from law enforcement practice are given, illustrating the inconsistancy of understanding the studied Institute of criminal law by investigative personnel and the judiciary. Each law enforcement officer, due to the lack of clear wording, is forced to interpret the norm independently, filling it with arbitrary content. This approach, of course, is unacceptable. Moreover, the interpretations often used are far from the main idea of the institution of release from punishment due to change in a situation and allow confusion or substitution of the term with other criminal law terms. In some cases, the courts consider it possible not to show specific circumstances at all, though they indicate a change in situation after the commission of the crime. Examples are given from practice where, instead of bringing arguments about change in situation, the law enforcement officer simply lists circumstances mitigating the punishment, names circumstances that should be taken into account when sentencing, names signs of active remorse or reconciliation with the victim. The author considers this state of affairs unacceptable and proposes, as alternative options for solving the problem, either introducing appropriate amendments to Article 80.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to clarify the concept, or rejecting this institution of criminal law.

Download Full-text