Justification of the study. the creation of a criminal law is a laborious and important process. When constructing articles of the criminal code, the legislator used various techniques and methods of presenting legislative material. One of the types of dispositions of an article is a simple disposition. Its application by the legislator raises questions among practitioners when qualifying crimes, and gives rise to discussions in the theory of criminal law. Methods. The methodological basis of the research was formed by general scientific and special methods of cognition: analysis, induction, systemic, comparative legal, formal legal methods and others. Results. The authors analysis of the simple disposition of the article, which provides for criminal liability for kidnapping, is carried out. The problems arising in the process of designing and applying Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are investigated. As a starting point, the explanations contained in the acts of the highest judicial bodies, judicial statistics were taken. The ways of improving the norms on criminal liability for kidnapping, proposed in the theory of criminal law, have been studied. Recommendations for the legislator and law enforcement officers have been formed. Conclusion. A simple disposition should be applied in exceptional cases when describing crimes of small and medium severity. The signs of a crime described in a simple disposition should be clear to the law enforcement officer due to the established uniform practice of applying the law. The lack of a unified understanding of the signs of a crime that are not described in a simple disposition leads in practice to legal uncertainty. Explaining the application of articles from a simple disposition leads, in fact, to the construction of corpus delicti by the judiciary. However, the design of the corpus delicti is the prerogative of the legislator. Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not meet the criterion of clarity and gives rise to a different understanding in practice of the signs of the objective and subjective aspects of the composition of the abduction of a person. The solution to the emerging problems is to change the simple disposition of Article 126 to a descriptive disposition, including an indication of the signs of the objective and subjective side of the crime. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that the simple disposition of the article for the first-time acts as an independent object of research and analysis on the example of the disposition of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors approach to assessing the applicability of a simple disposition, positive and negative trends in its application by the legislator and the judiciary is proposed.Key words:
Simple disposition of an article in a special part of the Criminal law (on the example of kidnapping)
Abstract: Justification of the study. the creation of a criminal law is a laborious and important process. When constructing articles of the criminal code, the legislator used various techniques and methods of presenting legislative material. One of the types of dispositions of an article is a simple disposition. Its application by the legislator raises questions among practitioners when qualifying crimes, and gives rise to discussions in the theory of criminal law. Methods. The methodological basis of the research was formed by general scientific and special methods of cognition: analysis, induction, systemic, comparative legal, formal legal methods and others. Results. The authors analysis of the simple disposition of the article, which provides for criminal liability for kidnapping, is carried out. The problems arising in the process of designing and applying Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are investigated. As a starting point, the explanations contained in the acts of the highest judicial bodies, judicial statistics were taken. The ways of improving the norms on criminal liability for kidnapping, proposed in the theory of criminal law, have been studied. Recommendations for the legislator and law enforcement officers have been formed. Conclusion. A simple disposition should be applied in exceptional cases when describing crimes of small and medium severity. The signs of a crime described in a simple disposition should be clear to the law enforcement officer due to the established uniform practice of applying the law. The lack of a unified understanding of the signs of a crime that are not described in a simple disposition leads in practice to legal uncertainty. Explaining the application of articles from a simple disposition leads, in fact, to the construction of corpus delicti by the judiciary. However, the design of the corpus delicti is the prerogative of the legislator. Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not meet the criterion of clarity and gives rise to a different understanding in practice of the signs of the objective and subjective aspects of the composition of the abduction of a person. The solution to the emerging problems is to change the simple disposition of Article 126 to a descriptive disposition, including an indication of the signs of the objective and subjective side of the crime. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that the simple disposition of the article for the first-time acts as an independent object of research and analysis on the example of the disposition of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors approach to assessing the applicability of a simple disposition, positive and negative trends in its application by the legislator and the judiciary is proposed.
Aggravating circumstances
