scholarly journals The Law as a Drawbar, or Judicial Arbitrariness: Recidivism = Repetition of Crimes in the Framework of Circumstances Aggravating the Punishment

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-81
Author(s):  
Я. Г. Лизогуб
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Current Problem ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Public Risk ◽  
The Law

The author has studied the current problem in Ukrainian criminal law – the problem of the courts’ understanding of the general jurisdiction of the repetition of offences, as well as their recidivism in the framework of the circumstances aggravating criminal punishment. Attention at the beginning of the paper, has been paid to the importance of understanding the regulatory act as the main source of criminal law in Ukraine. It has been demonstrated that it is the regulatory act that should determine the rules, which should be obeyed by the judicial authorities of Ukraine. It has been emphasized that it is necessary to take into account the law while interpreting the prescriptions of normative acts by the national courts; it has been stressed that such interpretation should proceed from the definitions and formulations available, first of all, in the legislation. The author has emphasized on the importance of adhering to the rules and regulations, in the course of such interpretation, used in the law without such unreasonable extension or distortion of their content by relevant court decisions. Having analyzed the relevant Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, as well as the verdict of one of the Courts of Appeal of Ukraine, the author tries to prove that the aforementioned courts violated the limits of its interpretation in explaining the provisions of the criminal law on repetition of offences and recidivism, while unjustifiably giving the value of one criminal feature to another one. According to the author, these judicial authorities have formally taken the formulation of the content of the repetition of offences and recidivism, which are legally saturated in the current Criminal Code of Ukraine. Thus, they actually ignored the increased public risk of recidivism against the backdrop of the repetition of offences. The specificity of committing the offenses inherent to the recidivism is not taken into account, when a person has already a previous conviction for unlawful activity, as well as the fact that such crimes are usually characterized in terms of their consistency and randomness. On this basis, the author has substantiated the incorrectness (criminal injustice) of the approach recommended by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the application of the institutions of recidivism and the repetition of offences in deciding the issue of punishment. Proper arguments have been provided. Specific conclusions have been formulated.

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Hakim Dalam Penetapan Sanksi Di Bawah Minimum Terhadap Tindak Pidana Narkotika

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-146
Author(s):  
Endy Ronaldi ◽  
Dahlan Ali ◽  
Mujibussalim Mujibussalim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Tindak pidana narkotika merupakan kejahatan luar biasa sehingga menjadi prioritas pemerintah untuk diperangi. Penanggulangan tindak pidana narkotika diatur dalam Undang-Undang No. 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika. Salah satu pengaturan dalam undang-undang tersebut adalah pemberian sanksi di bawah minimum melalui putusan hakim. Sebagaimana kasus yang terjadi dalam Putusan Nomor 64/PID/2012/PN Sigli, Putusan No. 1/pid.sus/2016/PN Cag. (narkotika) dan Putusan No. 14/pid.sus/2016/PN Cag. Adapun permasalahan yang dikaji yaitu faktor penyebab hakim memutuskan sanksi di bawah minimum kepada pelaku narkotika dan implikasinya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode yuridis normatif dengan mengkaji aspek normatif atas permasalahan yang dikaji. Pendekatan yang dilakukan adalah pendekatan kasuistik dengan menelaah putusan pengadilan. Putusan pengadilan dengan penetapan sanksi di bawah minimum disatu sisi bertentangan dengan asas legalitas dalam hukum pidana. Sehingga hal ini diakomodir dalam Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung No. 3 tahun 2015. Narcotics crimes are extraordinary crimes so that become government priorities to be minimized. Tackling narcotics crime is regulated in Law No. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. One of the regulations in the law is to impose sanctions below the minimum through a judge's decision. As the case with is the Decision Number 64/PID/2012/PN Sigli. The problems studied are the factors that cause the judge to decide the minimum sanctions for narcotics and their implications. The research method used is a normative juridical method by examining the normative aspects of the problem under study. The approach taken is a casuistic approach by examining court decisions. Court decisions with the determination of sanctions below the minimum on the one hand are contrary to the principle of legality in criminal law. So that accommodated in the Supreme Court Circular No. 3 of 2015.

scholarly journals Relevant Issues of the Legal Treatment of Abduction

Russian judge ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 45-50
Author(s):  
Svetlana V. Kornakova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Cis Countries ◽  
Definition Of

The article critically assesses the absence of a definitive provision in the Russian criminal law that does not meet the criterion of legality, revealing the qualifying features of kidnapping. Examples of contradictory court decisions resulting from this are given. The relevant legal norms of some CIS countries are analyzed. It is concluded that the definition of kidnapping developed by judicial and investigative practice and reflected in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is more specific. It is argued that it should be fixed in art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

The essence of deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities as a punishment for an offense under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code

2019 ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
Ольга Александровна Беларева
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Road ◽  
Paradoxical Situation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

В статье рассматривается сущность лишения права заниматься определенной деятельностью как обязательного дополнительного наказания за преступление, предусмотренное ст. 264 УК РФ. В большинстве приговоров по ст. 264 УК РФ дополнительное наказание сформулировано как лишение права заниматься деятельностью, связанной с управлением транспортным средством. Однако использование в приговорах единой формулировки не снимает вопросов, связанных с толкованием объема назначенных судом ограничений. Автором выделены два подхода к определению содержания понятия «транспортные средства»: широкий, включающий все виды транспортных средств, и узкий, включающий только механические транспортные средства. Анализ судебных решений позволяет сделать вывод об отсутствии единообразного подхода к определению содержания наказания в виде лишения права заниматься деятельностью, связанной с управлением транспортными средствами. Показано, что в практике применения наказания за преступления, предусмотренные ст. 264 УК РФ, сложилась парадоксальная ситуация: лицо, нарушившее правила дорожного движения, лишается права управления всеми видами транспортных средств. По мнению автора, такая ситуация нарушает принцип справедливости: характер наказания не соответствует характеру совершенного преступления. В целях единообразного применения уголовного закона Пленуму Верховного суда РФ следует разъяснить, что суды должны конкретизировать вид транспортных средств, права управления которыми лишается осужденный, исходя из характера совершенного преступления. The article deals with the essence of deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities as a mandatory additional punishment for a crime under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code. In most of the sentences under Art. 264 of the criminal code additional punishment is formulated as deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to driving. However, the use of a single wording in sentences does not remove questions of interpretation of the scope of the court's limitations. The author identifies two approaches to the definition of the concept of “vehicles”: wide, including all types of vehicles, and narrow, including only mechanical vehicles. Analysis of court decisions leads to the conclusion that there is no uniform approach to determining the content of the penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to the management of vehicles. The article shows that in the practice of punishment for the crimes provided for in the Art. 264 the criminal code, there is a paradoxical situation: a person who violates the rules of the road, is deprived of the right to control all types of vehicles. According to the author, this situation violates the principle of justice: the nature of the punishment does not correspond to the nature of the crime committed. For the purpose of uniform application of the criminal law to the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation it is necessary to explain that courts have to specify a type of vehicles which right of management is deprived condemned, proceeding from character of the committed crime.

12. Theft

2020 ◽  
pp. 356-406
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This chapter examines the law governing theft. It considers the extent to which the criminal law of theft conflicts with civil law concepts of property; whether it is possible to steal property that belongs to oneself; the types of property that may be stolen; and the extent to which it is possible to provide a definition of ‘dishonesty’. The test for dishonesty has been fundamentally altered by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, developments which are analysed in this chapter.

scholarly journals URGENSI DAN PENGATURAN UU TENTANG CONTEMPT OF COURT UNTUK MENJAMIN HARKAT, MARTABAT DAN WIBAWA PERADILAN

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditya Wisnu Mulyadi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Good Attitude

The phenomenon of the Contempt of Court is an event that is rife in Indonesia lately. It is considered to reduce the dignity, majesty and authority of the judiciary and its apparatus. Particularly the dignity and authority of the judge. Attitudes and actions displayed by the search for justice, legal practitioners, the press, political and social organizations, NGOs, academics, judicial commission, as well as various other parties in such a way can be categorized injure the dignity, majesty and authority of the judiciary, good attitude and actions directed against the judicial process, judicial officials, as well as court decisions. Lack of strict legal instruments and adequate to serve as guidelines and benchmarks to judge such a phenomenon is made Contempt of Court always the case. View of the judge is an arm of God would have been contrary to Contempt of Court. The judge in charge of prosecuting and providing justice for justice seekers should not accept the bad treatments. This study is based on normative research method using statutory approach and conceptual approaches. Legislation that used is Law No. 4 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, Code of criminal law, the law book of the law of criminal procedure, the draft book of the Criminal Justice Act 2012 and draft the Code of Criminal Procedure 2012. This research is expected to contribute significantly for the creation benchmarks and appropriate guidelines in terms of the establishment of regulations and legislation on Contempt of Court Act

scholarly journals Features of signs of the crime object provided by article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-198
Author(s):  
Алена Харламова ◽  
Alena Kharlamova ◽  
Юлия Белик ◽  
Yuliya Belik
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the problematic theoretical and practical issues of the content of the signs of the object of the crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code. The authors determined the main direct object, revealed the essence of the right of ownership, use and disposal. Marked social relations that can act as an optional direct object. Particular attention is paid in the article to the subject of the crime. Attempts have been made to establish criteria that are crucial for the recognition of any vehicle as the subject of theft. The content of the terms “automobile” and “other vehicle” is disclosed. The analysis of the conformity of the literal interpretation of the criminal law to the interpretation of the law enforcer is carried out. It is summarized that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation narrows the meaning of the term “other vehicle”, including in it only vehicles for the management of which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is granted a special right. The authors provide a list of such vehicles and formulate a conclusion on the advisability of specifying them as the subject of a crime. The narration of the article is accompanied by examples of decisions of courts of various instances in cases of crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals Efficiency of practical application of criminal law prohibition in the sphere of economy of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
pp. 118-123
Author(s):  
Vladimir Tunin ◽  
Natal'ya Radoshnova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Economic Crime ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Crimes

The article considers the practical effectiveness of the criminal law prohibition in combating economic crime in the Russian Federation. 22nd Chapter of the Criminal code currently includes 58 articles. This is maximum number of articles in relation to other chapters of the criminal code, in the same Chapter of the Criminal code. Accordingly the need for such a number of prohibitions in the economic sphere should be confirmed by judicial practice. However, a completely different picture emerges. Based on the analysis of the statistical reports of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the authors conclude that the enforcement practice in cases of economic crimes is insufficient.The authors express their opinion on the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the practical application of the articles constituting the 22nd Chapter of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation, and suggest ways to address them.

scholarly journals Problems of proving guilt in criminal cases in connection with tax evasion

2019 ◽  
pp. 170-176
Author(s):  
V. V. Dubrovin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The establishment of an intentional form of guilt and its specific type is mandatory for the implementation of the provisions of Art. 8 of the Criminal Code. In criminal proceedings in connection with tax evasion, a direct intent should be established in the act of the accused, otherwise the provisions of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2006 No. 64 “On the practice of criminal law on liability for tax offenses”. One of the proofs of direct intent in the act of the accused may be the decision of the tax authority to prosecute for the tax offense, made according to the results of tax control measures (in-house or on-site tax audits). In the event that it establishes an imprudent form of the taxpayer’s guilt in committing a tax offense, in proving the guilt of the accused in the course of criminal proceedings there may be an intractable contradiction.

scholarly journals Binding Nature of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Explanations in Criminal Law

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 95-107
Author(s):  
I. A. Klepitskiy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Nulla Poena Sine Lege ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The question of the legal nature and the binding nature of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation remains debatable in the literature. When considering criminal cases, the courts do not always follow the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. It seems that the explanations of the Supreme Court, while not being a source of criminal law, are nevertheless binding on courts and officials applying the norms of criminal law. This is a general rule, to which there are exceptions. First, there are erroneous explanations of the Supreme Court, which are not based on the established judicial practice and are not supported by it. Second, there are outdated explanations of the Supreme Court that do not meet modern legal realities. Third, there are explanations of the Supreme Court, which, in relation to a particular situation, require an expansive or restrictive interpretation. In these three situations, the Supreme Court’s explanations do not bind the law enforcement officer. The binding nature of the Supreme Court’s explanations is determined by the value of the law as such. Questions of law require a uniform resolution. An alternative to a uniform interpretation of the law is arbitrary administration. Arbitrary administration is not within the competence of the judge. There is no case law in Russia. The works of legal scholars in modern Russia also cannot satisfy the need for a uniform interpretation of the law. The significance of the explanations of the Supreme Court determines the high requirements for their quality. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not directly contradict the law. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not change unless there is an urgent need to do so. The rule nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, being an achievement of legal culture, binds the Supreme Court. By clarifying the practice of applying the law, the Supreme Court forms and preserves judicial doctrine, thereby providing legal certainty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document