Administrative Prejudice Research Articles

Beatings: the problem of administrative prejudice

Beatings: the problem of administrative prejudice

Criminal-legal prevention of drug crimesby using the institution of administrative prejudice

Criminal-legal prevention of drug crimesby using the institution of administrative prejudice

On the issue of using administrative prejudice to differentiate criminal liability for illicit trafficking in precious metals, precious and semi-precious stones

On the issue of using administrative prejudice to differentiate criminal liability for illicit trafficking in precious metals, precious and semi-precious stones

ADMINISTRATIVE PREJUDICE IN FOREIGN CRIMINAL LAW: HISTORY AND MODERNITY

The article examines criminal law with administrative prejudice, as well as the history of the emergence and development of norms with administrative prejudice in the modern criminal legislation of Russia on various grounds. This topic is relevant today because the Russian legislator constantly includes new norms containing administrative prejudice in the criminal code of the Russian Federation. The problems of applying norms with administrative prejudice in practice are considered. It is noted that the criminal legislation in force in the XX century actively applied administrative prejudice as a method of legal regulation of public relations arising in the process of implementing the criminal policy of the Soviet state. The article analyzes the criminal legislation of Russia from the point of view of further development of criminal legislation in the direction of improving the institution of administrative prejudice and increasing the number of norms with administrative prejudice.

The Establishment of Criminal Responsibility for Retail Sale of Alcoholic Products to Minors: An Analysis of the Feasibility

The paper analyzes the objective and subjective features of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The problems of interpretation and application of this norm are investigated, taking into account the goals and objectives underlying its creation. Special legislation regulating the sphere under study is considered. The studied imperfections of regulation of the subject of the crime (the relationship between the concepts of alcoholic and alcohol-containing products), problems of distinguishing acts from related compounds (article 151 of the Criminal Code), the complexity of the classification. The analysis of crime-forming features is presented: "repeatability", "retail", and "sale". Imperfections of the legislative and law enforcement approach in this aspect are revealed. In particular, the key features and correlation of the concepts of wholesale and retail trade are analyzed; the problems of assessing what was done with remote methods of selling alcohol; the content aspects of the categories "duplicity and repetition" in the context under study. The question of the expediency of replacing the term "sale" with "illegal sale" in the disposition of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is studied. The regulation of features of the subject of the studied elements is considered, and existing problems are identified. The question of the expediency of norms with administrative prejudice in the criminal law was raised. Some problematic aspects of sentencing for retail sale of alcoholic products to minors are identified; and issues of establishing the subjective side of the elements. The paper analyzes the opinions of various authors regarding the possibility of improving the norm of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the study of statistical data and materials of judicial practice. The author indicates the need for an integrated approach in the fight against alcohol abuse among young people. The conclusion is presented regarding the validity of the existence of the studied norm in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the current version.

Административная преюдиция в уголовном праве: проблемы теории и практики

Административная преюдиция в уголовном праве: проблемы теории и практики

Administrative prejudice in modern criminal proceedings: theory and practice

Administrative prejudice in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation appeared 10 years ago. Today, in the Criminal Code there are 13 such articles. Their application causes many questions from theorists and practitioners. The analyzed institute contradicts many principles of the Russian criminal procedure: the person bear responsibility for the first offense twice - primarily administrative, and then criminal responsibility; despite to the assertions of supporters of administrative prejudice it is not aimed at humanization of criminal law, but at strengthening its repressiveness; the first act is not investigated during preliminary investigation and is not explored in court; the military personnel of the Russian Federation and other persons with special ranks (about 2.5 million people in total) are not liable under the articles of the Criminal Code with administrative prejudice, this violates the principle of equality of all before the law.

Общественная опасность рецидива преступлений

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.

Peculiarities of social danger of crimes with administrative prejudice

Peculiarities of social danger of crimes with administrative prejudice

УГОЛОВНАЯ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ ЗА НЕУПЛАТУ СРЕДСТВ НА СОДЕРЖАНИЕ ДЕТЕЙ: ПРОБЛЕМЫ ТЕОРИИ И ПРАКТИКИ

The authors question the effectiveness of the current mechanism for holding accountable persons who evade paying alimony, as well as the expediency of introducing Article 157 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of the institute of administrative prejudice, which gave rise to a number of legal conflicts. The problem of non-payment of alimony is of an acute social nature, and the methods of its solution must take into account, first of all, the interests of the persons for whose maintenance the necessary funds must be received. However, criminal prosecution is far from always able to solve the main problem - to ensure payment discipline of persons who are responsible for paying funds for the maintenance of children. It is proposed to abandon the administrative prejudice, and as a constitutive element of the corpus delicti, to provide for the systematic nature of the evasion of payment of funds for the maintenance of children. In addition, it is advisable to provide for the possibility of relieving the debtor from criminal liability if the maintenance obligation is paid off in full.

Быть или не быть административной преюдиции и уголовному проступку в российском уголовном праве: аргументы «за» и «против»

Быть или не быть административной преюдиции и уголовному проступку в российском уголовном праве: аргументы «за» и «против»

The theory of the dangerous condition of person: one step forward or two steps back?

In this article, from the point of view of a critical analysis of the current criminal legislation of Russia, as well as the doctrine of criminal law and criminology, the question arises of the advisability of introducing criminal liability for occupying a higher position in the criminal hierarchy. n the course of the study, attention is drawn to the fact that the formation of the concept of “dangerous state of the person”, in the context of the development of the sociological school of criminal law, meant classifying in this category not only persons who had an objective danger to society (for example, repeat offenders and professional criminals), but persons who had a certain degree of deviation in relation to other representatives of society (for example, drunkards, prostitutes and drug addicts). Moreover, if the intensification of criminal repression against the former was at least somehow justified from the standpoint of the need to prevent serious crimes, the introduction of preventive measures against the second group of people generated exclusively their stigmatization in the eyes of society. When writing an article, the author also refers to foreign experience (primarily USA), which indicates the presence of certain excesses in the establishment of an internal criminal policy in relation to these categories of people: this is also the introduction of the category “dangerous criminal” for persons who have committed sexual offenses in Canada, and the establishment of the three-strikes law in the United States with extreme of it form in the state of California. It is also possible to attribute the expansion of cases of administrative prejudice to the field of establishing the category of a dangerous state of a person in the current criminal law of Russia, which analyzed in this article too. It is concluded that the introduction of criminal liability for the characterization of the person is contrary to the idea of prohibition of objective imputation established in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as in international acts as one of the fundamental principles of modern criminal law.

Administrative prejudice as an instrument of criminalization and decriminalization (on art. 178, 180, 2121 of the Russian Federation Criminal Сode)

The article questions it is valid to use the Institute of administrative prejudice by the legislator in the corpus delicti construction. While some scientists and lawyers argue that administrative prejudice is a «full-fledged» instrument of criminal policy, others believe that this institution violates non bis in idem principle, unreasonably increases the influence of the offender's personality traits on the basis of criminal responsibility and «blurs» the boundaries between crime and administrative offense. The author proves the inadmissibility of using the Institute of administrative prejudice in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Административная преюдиция в уголовном праве: pro et contra

The paper discusses the problems that occurred in the criminal law doctrine and in the law-enforcement practice because of the return of the rules with ad-ministrative prejudice to the domestic criminal law. The concept of administrative prejudice and the issues arising from the application of this institution are analysed. Various approaches (in the context of the pros and cons) to consideration of this phe-nomenon are represented. Since there is no unam-biguous understanding of administrative prejudice as a criminal law category in theory and law en-forcement practice at the moment, and the legislator follows the path of active introduction it into the provisions of the criminal law, it is proposed to more carefully regulate the institution of administrative prejudice in criminal law. In particular, it is advisable to fix the concept of administrative prejudice in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as to observe certain rules of the formulation of preju-dicial rules in order to ensure a unified approach to their construction.

Grounds and Criteria for Criminalization of Sexual Harassment in Labor Relations

Sexual harassment in the workplace has now become a significant social problem and, as a result, criminal legislation in many countries has included provisions prohibiting it. In our country, despite the change in moral standards of permitted forms of sexual behavior, the legislator has not yet implemented the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention On preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No. 210) (Istanbul Convention). The existing system of criminal law prohibitions does not effectively protect the individual from sexual harassment committed in the sphere of labor relations. Among the varieties of such acts not prohibited by the criminal law the author names the inducement to the actions of a sexual nature (associated with not the use of service dependencies, but regular contacts within the framework of labor relations); physical contact (touch), not conditioned by the nature or content of work, while not forming signs of sexual assault and causing physical pain; verbal or nonverbal abuse of a sexual nature; sexual harassment (harassment); other mental effects of a sexual nature. As shown by the analysis, these forms of deviant behavior has sufficient social danger, and the relative prevalence for their criminalization. The minimum harm from sexual harassment in the workplace is the negative impact on the psyche of the victim (both women and men), the degree of such impact due to the long-term nature of the labor realtions also becomes quite significant. In order to prevent excessive criminalization and reduce the risk of unjustified criminal prosecution, it is proposed to introduce a ban with the so called administrative prejudice, which implies the incurrence of administrative responsibility for sexual harassment in the workplace, and incurrence of criminal one — only for repeated actions of a person previously subjected to administrative punishment.

ADMINISTRATIVE PREJUDICE IN FOREIGN CRIMINAL LEGISLATION: HISTORY AND MODERNITY

The article investigates criminal law with administrative prejudice, as well as the history of the emergence and development of norms with administrative prejudice in the modern criminal legislation of Russia and foreign countries on various grounds. The problems of the application of norms with administrative prejudice in practice are considered. The criminal legislation of the states of the former Soviet Union, in particular the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan, is analyzed from the point of view of further development of the criminal legislation of these countries towards improving the institution of administrative prejudice and increasing the number of norms with administrative prejudice. It is noted that some post-Soviet states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) in their criminal legislation abandoned the institution of administrative prejudice and tried to replace the norms with administrative prejudice with others. Attention is drawn to the problems with the registration of administrative offenses and the application of data on registered administrative offenses for the correct application of the rules with administrative prejudice in practice by the law enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation.

О ПРАКТИЧЕСКОЙ НЕОБХОДИМОСТИ РАЗВИТИЯ ИНСТИТУТА «АДМИНИСТРАТИВНОЙ ПРЕЮДИЦИИ» В УГОЛОВНОМ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВЕ РОССИИ

О ПРАКТИЧЕСКОЙ НЕОБХОДИМОСТИ РАЗВИТИЯ ИНСТИТУТА «АДМИНИСТРАТИВНОЙ ПРЕЮДИЦИИ» В УГОЛОВНОМ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВЕ РОССИИ

Some trends in the decriminalization of acts in the sphere of economic activity

The authors critically assess the emerging legislative practice of novelization of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The paper establishes an avalanche-like process of introducing new crimes into the criminal law, often duplicating existing ones. Considering this phenomenon using the example of acts committed in the sphere of economic activity, a number of conclusions are formulated in the article on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of draft laws and adopted laws. The author argues about the tendency to introduce administrative prejudice into the criminal law, criticizes the criminalization of acts that clearly do not differ from the increased public danger from administrative and other offenses, formulates a conclusion about the advisability of decriminalizing certain types of crimes. In particular, according to the authors, it is necessary to change the design of Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, excluding the formal composition of the crime.

Обоснованность уголовно- правовых норм с административной преюдицией

Обоснованность уголовно- правовых норм с административной преюдицией

Legal Liability for the Violation of Traffic Rules by a Person Subjected to an Administrative Penalty

In the article actual problems of qualification of repeated driving of a car, a tram or other mechanical vehicle by a person in the state of intoxication are considered (Article 264.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Ways to solve these problems are suggested. The problems of establishing administrative prejudice in criminal legislation are identified, taking into account the provisions of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 10, 2017 no. 2-P. The problems of qualification of repeated driving of a vehicle by a person in the state of intoxication are investigated. It is substantiated that Art. 264.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a norm with double prevention. The conclusion is made that it is necessary to adopt a resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation where an interpretation will be given of the application of norms with administrative prejudice to develop a unified approach to understanding the criminalization of such acts and the grounds for prosecuting those who committed them.