Общественная опасность рецидива преступлений

Abstract

We point out that the danger is not the relapse of the crime, but the identity of the criminal, since the punishment for the person who committed the crime for the first time and the criminal who committed the crime again must be different, otherwise it would be contrary to the provision of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Principle of justice”, which requires taking into account the degree of committed socially dangerous crime and the identity of the perpetrator. It is reflected that since 2012 there has been a revival of “special relapse” in some corpus delicti (Articles 131, 264.1, etc.). In addition, we clarify that, in a certain sense, relapse can also include corpus delicti with administrative prejudice, but their reflection in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contradicts the concept of crime (Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), but directly on administrative prejudice in the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation domestic legislator did not mention anything. We note that in the current legislation it is necessary to return to the use of the term “relapsed criminal”, since it is precisely the number and categories of crimes that indicate the public danger of the identity of the perpetrator. We also denote that the relapse of crimes does not increase the degree of public danger of a particular crime, but testifies to the public danger of the identity of the perpetrator committing a certain act prohibited by criminal law.