scholarly journals CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LIFE AND HEALTH OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER THE NORMS OF MODERN CRIMINAL LAW OF INDIVIDUAL STATES OF THE ROMANO-GERMANIC LEGAL FAMILY

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-116
Author(s):  
Vladimir Kondratov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Enforcement Officer ◽  
Law Enforcement Officer

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

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.

scholarly journals Some problematic issues of the execution of punishment in the form of restriction of freedom

2021 ◽  
Vol 234 (11) ◽  
pp. 12-15
Author(s):  
ANATOLY A. MEDVEDEV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The State ◽  
Methodological Basis ◽  
Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Enforcement Officer

The article discusses the issue of the execution of punishment in the form of restriction of freedom, problematic issues faced by a law enforcement officer. The purpose of the study is to identify problematic issues of the implementation of the restriction of freedom and to suggest possible ways of solving them. The methodological basis of the research was formed by the analysis, synthesis and formallogical methods. As a result of the work carried out, some problematic issues arising in the execution of restrictions on freedom have been studied, in particular, the calculation of the term of punishment, bringing the convicted person to criminal responsibility for committing a crime provided for in part 1 of Article 314 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The state of law enforcement in the issues under consideration is analyzed. As a result of the study, the need to amend the legislation of the Russian Federation for resolving the problematic issues indicated in the article has been substantiated. Key words: convict, punishment, restriction of freedom.

scholarly journals On the Need and Possible Options for Changing the Rules for Determining Forms of Guilt

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 87-102
Author(s):  
D. A. Kokotova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Current Version ◽  
Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Law

The current version of part 2 of article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which appeared because of changes made to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1998, is rightly criticized for uncertainty. In the literature, various proposals are made to change the rules for determining the forms of guilt. The existing regulation needs adjusting, since it does not ensure the achievement of the initial goal of improving law enforcement, which was originally intended in part 2 of article 24, and does not comply with the principles of equality and legal certainty. The need to ensure compliance with these principles and achieve the original goal of the rule under consideration requires rejecting proposals to "legalize" the discretion of the law enforcement officer, the possibility of which arose due to the uncertainty of the current version of part 2 of article 24. Due to this uncertainty, compliance with the provisions of the Special part will not solve the existing problems. Unifying negligent crimes into a separate chapter, dividing the crimes in the existing chapters by paragraphs, depending on the form of guilt, is too difficult a way if we are talking about improving the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Clear automatic consolidation of the possibility of both forms of guilt does not provide the required differentiation of punishment.Restoring the original version of part 2 of article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is an acceptable and easiest way, but there is a reason to believe that the rule changed in this way will fail to ensure that the law enforcement officer follows it. The inclusion of a form of guilt clause in the description of each body of a crime might be an effective means of limiting the discretion of the law enforcement officer, but this method is difficult to implement. It combines the features of these two methods of fixing the rule in the form of a list of crimes involving a particular form of guilt, by analogy with how the age at which criminal responsibility begins is now established.

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

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).

PROBLEMS OF DISTINCTION OF INTENTION AND NEGLIGENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW

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.

scholarly journals Types Of Crimes Perpetration Of Which By Law Enforcement Officer Is Of Criminal And Legal Importance

2019 ◽  
pp. 34-46
Author(s):  
I.V. Bahan
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Official Position ◽  
Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Status ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Law Enforcement Officer

The article is devoted to the analysis of some problematic aspects of determining the types of crimes perpetration of which by a law enforcement officer is of criminal and legal importance; various scientific works related to this topic are analyzed. The status of a law enforcement officer, who is an official, in many cases has criminal and legal value and affects both the qualification of the crime committed and the imposition of punishment. However, it should be noted that in the majority of cases such acts committed by law enforcement officers are too far from their law enforcement activities. The article investigates crime composition that provides for criminal responsibility for committing crimes by law enforcement officers and delineates them, conditionally dividing the crimes into seven groups that can be committed by a law enforcement officer, and the status of a law enforcement officer is of criminal and legal importance directly in the last four groups. Attention is drawn to the lack of a comprehensive study of the responsibility of law enforcement officials in the country and to the fact that the status of a law enforcement officer is of criminal and legal significance only in cases when a crime is committed in which according to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the subject of a crime is an official himself or when a law enforcement officer commits socially dangerous act, the subject of which is an official, or a qualifying feature of which is the commission of an act by an official using his or her official position, since the law enforcement officer is also an official performing the functions of a representative of the authorities.  

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

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.

scholarly journals Theoretical Aspects of Differentiation of Criminal Liability for Taking Bribes

2020 ◽  
pp. 83-87
Author(s):  
Anna Aleksandrovna Amosova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Enforcement Officer

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document