The problem of criminal statistical casuistry of the category of "extremist crimes" based on examples of qualitative and quantitative analysis of their indicators.

Abstract

The subject of the study consists of separate statistical indicators of extremist crimes in their relationship with the formal definition of the list of such acts in Russian legislation. Special attention is paid to various approaches to explaining the phenomenon of extremism by sciences other than criminology; the content of criminal law signs of the phenomenon under consideration; analysis of the place of extremist crimes in the structure of modern Russian crime; the problem of forming objective criminal statistics due to the adoption of novelties of administrative and criminal legislation; issues of registration discipline of this group of criminal encroachments and the latency of illegal acts. The purpose of the presented work is to put forward and verify the hypothesis of the presence of specific statistically significant dependencies in the registration of the phenomenon of criminal extremism and to analyze the impact of the completeness of the data obtained in this way on the conclusions of criminological science. Methodologically, in our theoretical judgments, we relied on the universal method of dialectical materialism. Private methods consisted in using methods of statistical grouping of data, correlation analysis. The scientific novelty of the work carried out consists in the fact that we explained the reasons (origins) of the use of the criminal statistical approach in the formulation of the definition of extremism (extremist activity) by the legislator in 2002. By analyzing various approaches to understanding extremism from other sciences, the inconsistency of other formulations of the concept was determined. From a dialectical-materialistic point of view, a hypothesis has been put forward that criminal extremism belongs exclusively to political crime. They pointed to the limited volume of recorded crimes from the point of view of the "law of large numbers" as one of the main applied shortcomings that arise when analyzing indicators in modern criminological research. They justified the absence of a linear correlation between "prejudicial" administrative offenses and the corresponding extremist elements of crimes, pointing out, however, that the relationship of states between them persists at three analyzed stages. In the conclusions, we pointed out the key problems of the formation of modern criminal statistics in terms of the formation of our objective ideas about the state of the phenomenon of criminal extremism.