scholarly journals Do we need a new “recipe for salvation” of criminal law? (Mournful reflections about A.S. Alexandrov’s and I.A. Alexandrova’s article)

2021 ◽  
pp. 100-105
Author(s):  
Alexei Kibalnik
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
White Collar Crime ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
White Collar ◽  
Overwhelming Majority ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Domestic Science

This article presents a response to the work of A.S. Alexandrov and I.A. Alexandrova entitled «Proceduralstrategy for the development of criminal law in the XXI century». These authors state the decline of the Russian doctrine of criminal law, characterized by its «archaism» and the impossibility of rejecting «dogmas». They offered a very original «recipe for salvation» of the domestic science of criminal law through its «procedural revolution». The author of the article gives a number of arguments against the reasoning of Professors Alexandrovs. In particular, it is emphasized that the overwhelming majority of modern specialists in the field of criminal law do not raise the question of his «seniority» over the criminal process. Further, if the question of the criminality of an act is decided by the court and/or by the prosecution side authorities then practically any act of behavior can be arbitrarily declared criminal (or vice versa). Finally, some of the «dogmas of criminal law» that Professors Alexandrovs were talking about are simply absent in the doctrine. In particular there is no principle of «inevitability of criminal liability» as a mandatory punish-ability of any crime, the postulates of «invariability of the criminal legal basis» of responsibility, of «social justice» of criminal punishment. The article indicates that professors Alexandrov’s (deliberately or unknowingly) distorted doctrinal positions on a number of problems of criminal law (for example, on the assessment of «white-collar» crime, on the «fragmentation» of norms on fraud). A general conclusion about the inadmissibility of the «procedural revolution» of Russian criminal law is made.

Suspended Sentence and Placement in a Special Educational Institution: Features of Application and Correlation in the Context of the Systematic Nature of Criminal Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 267-271
Author(s):  
Vаleria A. Terentieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Educational Institution ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Simultaneous Application ◽  
Closed Type ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Regulation

The systematic nature of criminal law forms the main features of the industry, namely: normativity, universalism, that is, the absence of casuistry and obligation. The strict consistency of both the entire industry and its individual institutions allows avoiding the redundancy of criminal law regulation, clearly determining the legal status of a person in conflict with the law. However, the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation do not always meet these requirements due to defects in legal technology, and, sometimes, gaps in regulation. In practice, the courts, in an effort to minimize the above defects, sometimes resort to excessive criminal law regulation; as an example, the article gives the ratio of the application of suspended sentence and placement in a special educational institution of a closed type. The article analyzes sentences to minors in which Art. 73 and Part 2 of Art. 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were simultaneously applied in one sentence for the same act. For a comprehensive study, the article analyzed sentences to minors held in special educational institutions of a closed type for the period from 2014 to 2020, criminal statistics posted on the website of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as various points of view of leading legal scholars. The research methods of static observation, analysis and synthesis, the system-structural method, as well as a number of factographic methods, were used. The study develops from the general to the specific, i.e., first, systematicity is analyzed as a property of the branch of criminal law and then as a property of a legal institution, namely, the release of minors from criminal liability. Consistency as a property of the institution of exemption from criminal punishment presupposes the impossibility of intersecting elements within one institution. Special attention is paid to the legal nature of suspended sentence as the most common punishment measure for minors, and its effectiveness. Then the cases of the simultaneous application of Art. 73 and Part 2 of Art. 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are analyzed. In the course of the study, the author examines the features of suspended sentence and placement in a special educational and educational institution of a closed type, compares these two forms of criminal liability, and highlights the differences. The conclusion is that the simultaneous placement in a special educational institution of a closed type and suspended sentence are a redundancy of criminal law regulation. The article raises the question of the need to improve the Criminal Code in terms of the development of placement in a special educational and educational institution of a closed type as a type of exemption from criminal punishment: the court is to be provided with the opportunity to control the juvenile offender’s correctional process.

The Problem of Correlation Between the Criminal Policy Humanization and the Concept of Justice at Imposing Criminal Penalties in the Republic of Kazakhstan

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
Meruyert MASSALIMKYZY
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
The Social ◽  
Penal Institution ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Feasible Solutions ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article raises the problem of unjustified humanization of criminal legislation and the practice of imposing a punishment. Imposing a punishment as a legal category has been extensively studied in the works of national and foreign scholars specializing in criminal law. However, despite the importance of this institution both for the convict and for the society as a whole, this penal institution remains one of the most problematic ones. The existing conflict between the current criminal policy humanism and the concept of social justice in criminal legislation, the adequacy of a punishment to the social danger of the offense being a part thereof, makes enormous harm to all law enforcement activities. It also causes negative response in the society, thus reasonably attracting a heightened attention of criminologists and experts in criminal law and procedure. The purpose of this work, as the author sees it, is trying to find feasible solutions to one of the most urgent problems of imposing a punishment. Attention is drawn to the fact that the concept of humanism has two aspects and implies, first of all, the protection of interests of law-abiding citizens. The author considers topical issues concerning the observance of the rights of victims through the solution one of the main tasks of criminal law, namely: to restore social justice by imposing a proportionate criminal punishment. Certain provisions of the theory of criminal punishment, as well as the practice of imposing punishment by the court, are studied here. Insufficient development of norms in the current criminal legislation can create problems in law enforcement, which, in turn, can lead to a significant violation of the victims’ rights. The author makes recommendations that can contribute to the improvement of the penal system consistent with the principle of humanism, considering the interests of the victims.

scholarly journals The goals of criminal punishment as a reflection of modern criminal policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 324-330
Author(s):  
V.V. Popov ◽  
◽  
S.M. Smolev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The presented study is devoted to the issues of disclosing the content of the goals of criminal punishment, analyzing the possibilities of their actual achievement in the practical implementation of criminal punishment, determining the political and legal significance of the goals of criminal punishment indicated in the criminal legislation. The purpose of punishment as a definition of criminal legislation was formed relatively recently, despite the fact that theories of criminal punishment and the purposes of its application began to form long before our era. These doctrinal teachings, in essence, boil down to defining two diametrically opposed goals of criminal punishment: retribution and prevention. The state, on the other hand, determines the priority of one or another goal of the punishment assigned for the commission of a crime. The criminal policy of Russia as a whole is focused on mitigating the criminal law impact on the offender. One of the manifestations of this direction is the officially declared humanization of the current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. However, over the course of several years, the announced “humanization of criminal legislation” has followed the path of amending and supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: introducing additional opportunities for exemption from criminal liability and punishment, reducing the limits of punishments specified in the sanctions of articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and including in the system of criminal punishments of types of measures that do not imply isolation from society. At the same time the goals of criminal punishment are not legally revised, although the need for such a decision has already matured. Based on consideration of the opinions expressed in the scientific literature regarding the essence of those listed in Part 2 of Art. 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the goals of punishment are determined that each of them is subject to reasonable criticism in view of the abstract description or the impossibility of achieving in the process of law enforcement (criminal and penal) activities. This circumstance gives rise to the need to revise the content of the goals of criminal punishment and to determine one priority goal that meets the needs of modern Russian criminal policy. According to the results of the study the conclusion is substantiated that the only purpose of criminal punishment can be considered to ensure proportionality between the severity of the punishment imposed and the social danger (harmfulness) of the crime committed. This approach to determining the purpose of criminal punishment is fully consistent with the trends of modern criminal policy in Russia, since it does not allow the use of measures, the severity of which, in terms of the amount of deprivation and legal restrictions, clearly exceeds the social danger of the committed act. In addition, it is proportionality, not prevention, that underlies justice – one of the fundamental principles of criminal law.

White-Collar Crime

Criminology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally S. Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Chief Executive Officers ◽  
White Collar Crime ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
White Collar ◽  
Street Crime ◽  
White Collar Offenders ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Executive Officers

The meaning and definition of white-collar crime is deeply contested. Most criminologists recognize that white-collar crime is different from traditional “street” crime. Disagreements center on the scope of the behavior and who, ultimately, is classified as a white-collar offender. Generally, white-collar crimes are offenses conducted by guile or concealment that involve “upper world” offenders. Broad definitions of white-collar crime can include harmful acts which are not illegal (deviance) to more narrow definitions that are tied exclusively to violations of criminal law. Depending on which definition is used, white-collar offenders may include governments, businesses, chief executive officers, professionals, welfare cheats, and individuals who illegally download software or purposefully underreport income on their taxes.

ON THE FORMAL ASPECT OF REGULATION OF THE CRIMINAL LEGAL IMPACT IN RESPECT OF MILITARY PERSONNEL IN THE RF CRIMINAL CODE

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
R. V. Zakomoldin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Military Personnel ◽  
Military Service ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Special Part ◽  
General Part ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The paper analyzes special norms and provisions of the RF Criminal Code reflecting the specifics of criminal law impact towards such a particular subject as military personnel. The author studies the nature, meaning, and varieties of special criminal law norms. The paper highlights the diversity of such norms and their presence in General and Special parts of the criminal law. In this respect, the author explains that these norms have a dual purpose: they are applied both instead of general norms and along with them, supplementing and specifying them. The author emphasizes the certainty, necessity, and reasonability of special norms and provisions in criminal law. The study pays special attention to military criminal legislation as a special criminal legal institution and a set of special rules and provisions that allows differentiating and individualizing criminal responsibility and criminal punishment of servicemen, taking into account the specifics of their legal status and the tasks they perform in the conditions of military service. The author considers special norms and provisions of the General Part of the RF Criminal Code regulating particular military types of criminal punishment and the procedure for their imposition (Articles 44, 48, 51, 54, 55), as well as the norms and provisions of the Special Part of the RF Criminal Code on crimes against military service (Articles 331–352). Besides, the study identifies close interrelation and interdependence of special norms and provisions of the criminal law with the criminal procedure and criminal executive legislation because they are the elements of a single mechanism of criminal law impact on military personnel, and only their combination ensures the effectiveness of such impact. Based on the analysis, the author formulates the conclusions and proposals to introduce amendments and additions to the RF Criminal Code concerning military criminal legislation. First of all, the author proposes highlighting the section “Criminal liability of military personnel” and the chapter “Features of criminal liability and punishment of military personnel” in the General part of the RF Criminal Code and abandoning the provision of part 3 of Art. 331 in the Special part.

Individual Criminal Responsibility for the Financing of Entities Involved in Core Crimes: Aiding and Abetting

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Ausserladscheider Jonas ◽  
Dire Tladi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression could not be perpetrated without those who finance them. This article examines the basis for criminal liability in international criminal law (ICL) for persons who finance entities that perpetrate core crimes. Despite the need for clear rules, neither international courts nor scholars agree upon (i) whether liability exists for individuals who finance entities that perpetrate core crimes; and (ii) if so, the circumstances under which such liability exists. This article argues that an individual who finances an entity that perpetrates a core crime should be held criminally liable under customary international criminal law as an aider and abettor. The objective of this article is to clarify the rules that would enable international courts and tribunals to identify the extent to which individual criminal liability attaches to the financing of core crimes, as well as the legal basis for such liability. By clarifying the criminal accountability of individuals who finance entities that perpetrate core crimes, this article also seeks to clarify the mental elements of the mode of liability of aiding and abetting.

Restoration of Social Justice and Imposition of Proportionate Punishment in the Context of the Principle Non Bis In Idem

10.12737/7595 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Сергей Андрусенко ◽  
Sergey Andrusenko
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
System Study ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law

The article discusses current issues in the restoration of victim rights by applying one of the fundamental principles of criminal law: the reestablishment of social justice and the commensurability/proportionality of the criminal justice system. Study the problems in the theory of criminal punishment that justify the possibility of increasing the punishment after conviction. The author also analyzes some of the positions of modern medicine which is based on the ability to change the verdict and appointment of new criminal penalties. Insufficient developed changes that were made to the criminal procedure law, can create problems of law enforcement practices that lead to a substantial violation of the rights of victims. The article also examines conflict general principles of criminal law, namely, the restoration of social justice and proportionality of criminal punishment and principle non bis in idem. The author points out significant challenges that may arise in law enforcement and offers solutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document