Abstract
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.
Highlights
The article indicates that professors Alexandrov's
О состоянии и перспективах отечественного уголовного законодательства («Камо грядеши?») // Уголовное право: стратегия развития в XXI веке: материалы XVIII Международной научно-практической конференции
Summary
В частности, подчеркивается, что подавляющее большинство современных специалистов в области уголовного права не ставят вопрос о его «старшинстве» над уголовным процессом. В частности, не существует принципа «неотвратимости уголовной ответственности» как обязательной наказуемости любого преступления, постулатов о «неизменности уголовно-правового основания» ответственности, о «социальной справедливости» уголовного наказания. В статье указано на то, что профессора Александровы (сознательно либо по незнанию) исказили доктринальные позиции по целому ряду проблем уголовного права (например, об оценке «беловоротничковой» преступности, о «дроблении» составов мошенничества).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Legal Science and Practice: Journal of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.