USING OF THE CONCEPT SCOPE DIVISION RULES IN ASCERTAINING THE CRIMINAL CODE OF UKRAINE SENSE

Abstract

Verbal means, as well as nonverbal means, including rules of concept scope division, are used in ascertaining the true sense of law. Division of concept scope should be done according to the rules, which are clearly defined in formal logic. Therefore, having the concept divided by the legislator in conformity with these rules, some conclusions concerning divided concept and elements of division can be made, that means receiving new knowledge about sense of legislative rule and concepts, used in it. But before applying such divisions in order to get new true knowledge, one should make sure that, firstly, whether the analyzed operation with concept scope is really its division, and, secondly, whether the legislator has followed the formal logic rules of such division while dividing the concept. It is worth mentioning that the legislator, providing the division of the concept scope, quite often does not follow the rules of such division. Only when the abovementioned two conditions are ascertained, the «additional» true knowledge about content and scope of generic and specific concepts can be obtained according to the rules of division. This knowledge includes: 1) knowledge that the scope of all the elements of division is equal to (exhausts) the scope of the divided concept and makes possible the exact ascertaining of divided generic concept scope, which as well prevents a possibility of the Criminal Code of Ukraine applying by analogy, of different interpretation, discretion of a judge. Ascertaining the concept scope helps us in ascertaining its content and, of course, ascertaining the generic concept content means that generic characteristics of specific concepts become known; 2) since the right division is provided according to one basis (characteristic) only, this very characteristic is considered to be the changeable and different specific characteristic of all division elements (specific concepts). All other characteristics of specific concepts should be the same; 3) knowing that the division elements (specific concepts) exclude one another, one can come to the conclusion that the same one thing or one phenomenon for sure can’t be simultaneously the element of different specific concepts scope, for example one action (crime) can’t simultaneously belong to several kinds of concepts, each thing or each phenomenon, which belong to different specific concepts scope, can’t get the same criminal law estimation and cause the same criminal law consequences etc; 4) when the division is continuous, this indicates that obtained specific concepts belong to the same rank, have equal amount of common generic, as well as of distinctive specific characteristics. But such concepts can have different scopes. When it is clearly ascertained that the rules of concepts division have not been followed by legislator, or something, that is not the division, is concerned as division, in such cases the abovementioned new knowledge can be false.