Russian Criminal Law Research Articles

THE ROLE OF THE RUSSIAN ANIMAL PROTECTION SOCIETY IN IMPROVING THE LEGISLATION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN THE FIELD OF HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IN THE 2ND HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY

The article analyses one of the key law-making initiatives of the Russian Animal Protection Society, which arose in 1865. This law-making initiative of Society was launched in the 2nd half of the 19th century and thanks to it, a norm establishing legal responsibility, appeared in the criminal law act of the Russian Empire – the «Statute on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace». For the first time in the history of the development of Russian law a norm that establishes legal liability for intentionally inflicting torment on pets has appeared. The different law-making practice of protecting animals from cruel treatment, which at the said time did exist in foreign countries, is given. It was taken into account by the Society when developing the draught law. Starting with the introduction of administrative measures to protect animals in the form of «Rules for the treatment of animals» approved by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Society faced with the ineffectiveness of their application in practice after some time. Then the Society came to the conclusion that it was necessary to establish in legislation legal liability for causing animals to suffer. The draught law prepared by the Society, found a response from the supreme authorityas a result of which, Russian criminal law was supplemented with a fundamentally new norm that puts animal rights under the state protection of.

Имплементация международно-правовых норм об ответственности за экоцид в российском уголовном праве

The article reveals the concept of "implementation" based on the study of international legal doctrine. The correlation of this concept with such types of "penetration" of international norms into the domestic sphere as transformation, incorporation, reception,etc. is shown. Special attention is paid to ecocide as a result of the implementation of international law in the norm of responsibility for this crime in the Russian criminal law. It has been established that the process of implementing the norms of international law on ecocide is complicated by many problems, the main of which are: a) a large number, diversity and intensive dynamics of relevant international norms; b) the choice of optimal ways of implementation; c) maintaining a balance between the law and policy. The State, as the main (primary) subject of international law and a monopolist in the development and implementation of criminal policy, fully possesses the means to resolve these problems.

Theoretical problems of understanding the essence of administrative prejudice in criminal law

Subject of research: the article considers the issue of the essence of administrative prejudice in the criminal law of Russia and Belarus. Purpose of research: to determine the meaning of administrative prejudice in criminal law and its place in the structure of the corpus delicti of a crime, as well as to correlate administrative prejudice and other institutes of criminal law. Methods and objects of research: in conducting the research the traditional methods of socio-legal and formal-dogmatic analysis were used: documentary, historical-legal, analytical, systematic, logical. Main results of research: the author considers administrative prejudice in the general context of crime and its substantive features, determines the place of administrative prejudice in the structure of the corpus delicti. Separately the question of criteria of criminalization of acts in criminal law, understanding of criminal law in a broad sense, differentiation of crime and offense is revealed. The legal nature of administrative prejudice, its connection with public danger and insignificance of a deed is shown, the main features of acts, which are characterized by signs of administrative prejudice, are disclosed. Special attention in the work is paid to the analysis of subjective signs of administrative prejudice, the establishment of recommendations on the application of the norms of criminal law in this part and qualification of unlawful acts. The basic provisions of the science of criminal law are given and specific measures to improve the current criminal legislation are proposed.

Comparative Analysis of the Telephone Fraud Liability in the Criminal Law of Russia and Foreign Countries Based on the Dynamics of Damage Example

Introduction. The telephone fraud is a serious problem faced both in Russia and abroad. With the development of digital technologies and Internet, the fraudsters find the new ways to deceive citizens by calling them on the phone, pretending to be the representatives of banks, law enforcement agencies or other official institutions. The dynamics of damage caused by such crimes is constantly growing, therefore, the efficient measures should be taken to prevent and suppress fraud. The aim of the article is to conduct a comparative analysis of the criminal law with respect to telephone fraud liability in Russia and foreign countries based on the dynamics of damage example.Materials and Methods. The methodological basis of the research included the general and specific scientific methods of cognition. Among the general scientific methods, the dialectical and legalistic methods were used. In addition, the method of historical analysis, data analysis and synthesis methods were applied, the legal acts regulating the public relations on countering the telephone fraud were investigated. Also, a comparative legal method was used to analyse and compare different legal provisions. For more complete understanding of the problem, the analysis of the judicial practices of the Russian courts was carried out, which made it possible to evaluate the existing law enforcement practices in the specific situations.Results. The analysis of the criminal law on fraud liability in Russia and foreign countries, as well as measures enforced to counteract fraud in the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China and the United States of America, has been carried out. The consequences of fraud as a type of crime have been studied, and the general dynamics of damage from the registered and investigated telephone frauds in the Russian Federation has been analysed. The main trends and features of such cases have been revealed.Discussion and Conclusion. The analysis of the criminal law demonstrates that fraud liability in Russia and foreign countries has its own features. Studying these differences will help to identify the best practices in countering fraud and to develop the more efficient measures for preventing this type of crime and punishing the fraudsters.

The Criminal Code of Mongolia. The General Part. Crime

Introduction. In a number of positions, the Criminal Code of Mongolia is recognized as more progressive than the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, it is no coincidence that there is a noticeable increase in the number of publications devoted to legislative decisions of the Criminal Code of Mongolia, which are of undoubted interest in scientific discussions on key criminal law issues.General provisions. The Criminal Code opens with Chapter 1 "General provisions", which sets out the goals, principles of the criminal legislation of Mongolia, the rules of its operation in space and time. The Criminal Code of Mongolia enshrines only three principles: legality, justice and guilt. The law explicitly states that it is not allowed to bring a person to criminal responsibility for opinions or beliefs. The issue of the time of commission of ongoing and ongoing crimes has been resolved. The rules on the statute of limitations of a crime have been moved to this chapter.Crime. The foresight of an act in the criminal law is called an indispensable condition for the recognition of an act and omission as criminal, and, in particular, a careless act. The concepts of a continuing crime and an ideal set of crimes are revealed. Only two categories of crimes are fixed: serious and minor. The form of guilt for the purposes of categorization of crimes in the Criminal Code of Mongolia is insignificant. The very forms of guilt (intent and negligence) are named in art. 2.3. At the same time, intent is not divided into types. TheCriminal Code of Mongolia defines the concept of damage and harm caused by a crime. The chapter ends with the regulations on the unfinished crime.Complicity. It is noteworthy that the form of guilt of the crime committed is not specified in the law. A mediocre performer is a person who has committed a crime by using not only a person who has not reached the age from which criminal responsibility begins, an insane person, but also other persons who have not committed a crime in complicity with the perpetrator and do not realize that a crime is being committed, or livestock or other animals. The perpetrator of a crime is also recognized as a person who inclines another person to commit a crime under the influence of physical or mental coercion.Circumstances precluding the criminality of the act. This institution has found regulation in Chapter 4 of the Criminal Code. It can distinguish significant differences from the Russian Criminal Code in regulating necessary defense, extreme necessity, coercion, reasonable risk, and execution of an order.The procedure, grounds for criminal prosecution and exemption from criminal liability. Chapter 6 contains regulatory requirements that define: (1) signs of the subject of the crime – an individual; (2) general rules for bringing to criminal responsibility and (3) special rules for sentencing; (4) rules for exemption from criminal liability and punishment.Liability of legal entities. Chapter 9, which closes the General Part, is devoted to their responsibility, which defines the grounds for bringing legal entities to criminal responsibility; types of criminal liability; guarantees of its inevitability. The basis for the imposition of punishment is the sole or joint decision of authorized officials representing a legal entity, or actions or omissions committed in the interests of a legal entity that contain signs of an appropriate corpus delicti.Conclusions. Modern Mongolian criminal legislation, while maintaining continuity and honoring legal and cultural traditions, has a qualitative originality. The normative prescriptions proposed in it are of interest to Russian criminal law science and the legislator. Undoubtedly, the experience of Mongolian criminal law regulation can and should be taken into account by the domestic legislator.

Differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person: evolution in Russian criminal legislation

The subject of the study is to consider the issues of the evolution of Russian criminal legislation in terms of the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person. As the materials of the study, criminal law monuments of national history were selected, in the content of which the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person was carried out. The article presents a historical and legal review of the main sources of criminal law of the X-XX centuries in terms of the approach reflected in them to the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person and analyzes the formation of an appropriate mechanism of criminal law protection. Using the example of the monuments of Russian criminal law of the X–XX centuries, the features of the construction of qualified and privileged elements of crimes against the person, the ways of their construction and presentation in the text of the criminal law are considered. To conduct an objective and comprehensive review of the chosen topic, the article used such general scientific and private scientific methods as analysis, generalization, historical, formal legal, comparative legal. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that, taking into account the retrospective approach, the historical experience of the formation of the institution of differentiation of criminal liability for attacks on life, health, freedom, honor, dignity and other protected values is traced and the process of consistent regulatory and legal registration of differentiating criminal liability features is reflected. In conclusion, the author concludes that the process of constructing differentiating criminal liability features dates back to the legislation of Ancient Russia, and their subsequent regulation maintained a certain continuity throughout the development of Russian criminal legislation. The differentiation of responsibility, despite its long history, currently remains the main method of criminal law policy, the application of which, including to the crimes under consideration, requires further reflection and improvement.

Confiscation of Property: Russian and Foreign Law Enforcement Experience

The paper examines the prospects for increasing the effectiveness of this measure. The study utilizes the data on the use of confiscation of property as another measure of criminal law in Russia, as well as foreign experience in the use of confiscation of property. The author notes the alarming fact that Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is applied in 60% of cases for crimes related to violation of the rules for handling narcotic drugs, psychotropic and potent substances; given the frequency of application of the measure under study, the absence of a significant desired effect is indicated. It is noted that the confiscation of property actually performs only a «protective» function and neglects the potential preventive component. There are several shortcomings pointed out in the paper. Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation specifies a closed list of crimes. The legislation restricts the possibility of confiscating property transferred by a convicted person to another person; it is only possible if the person knew that it was obtained as a result of criminal acts; the burden of proof of the illegality of the acquisition of property is placed on government bodies. The obstacles to the return of confiscation of property to the number of punishments are examined separately. These include the experience of using confiscation as another measure of a criminal legal nature that has developed over the past few years. Some more are the possibility of confiscating property for the benefit of the state in a civil-legal manner; the negative historical experience of using confiscation of property; the absence of clearly reliable and recognized data characterizing the preventive potential of confiscation as a punishment (especially in the context of the possibility of using confiscation of property as a punishment exclusively to the guilty person). Some attention is given to the issue of positive and negative features of the regulation of confiscation of property in sectoral legislation, as well as aspects of shifting the burden of proof of the legality of the acquisition of property.

Согласие на причинение вреда как потенциальное обстоятельство, исключающее преступность деяния: к вопросу о содержании понятия

The problem of consent to injury raises almost the largest number of discussions in the Russian criminal law theory. Although the social relations need the respective legal regulation, the criminal law has no provision to determine legality of causing an injury upon the victim’s consent. The concept of consent to injury is the critical aspect of the problem under consideration. In this article, the author analyzes classical and contemporary approaches to defining the named concept and the list of its attributes and concludes that the consent to injury as a circumstance that excludes the criminal nature of the act is a will of a person that is formed based on personal interest gives rise to permissive criminal relations and is aimed at performance of an act by another person leading to socially relevant changes in a specific criminal law protection object owned by the consent subject. The conclusions presented in the article can be used as a theoretical basis for studies of conditions of acknowledging an injury caused upon the victim’s consent as legal, and in law making activities at design of respective legal provisions on consent to injury as a circumstance that excludes the criminal nature of the act.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMES RELATED TO THE ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACCORDING TO THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

This article analyzes crimes related to the illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in the context of Russian criminal law. Various categories of such crimes are considered depending on the degree of their social danger. Special attention is paid to the criminal-legal assessment of actions and proposals for improving the regulatory framework to protect public health and ensure law and order. The article emphasizes the importance of constant analysis and adaptation of the legal system to changing conditions, as well as discusses strategies to counteract the illegal distribution of narcotic substances.

Sources of specification and interpretation of the prescriptions of a special part of Russian criminal law

The article examines the system of formal sources of Criminal Law, which, during consideration and analysis, is thought of as a set of forms of expression of criminally relevant information, differentiated depending on the content of information, subjects of its presentation, purpose in the mechanism of criminal law regulation and clearly falling into two related groups: related to the criminal law prohibition in as a whole and to the composition of the crime. As the main conclusion, a system of formal sources of a Special part of Criminal Law is proposed, consisting of two groups of acts: a) normative acts, which are represented by sources of establishing a criminal law prohibition (the Criminal Code and the code of responsibility for criminal acts of a low degree of danger) and sources of specifying the prohibition (resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation and resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation); b) non-normative acts, which are represented by sources of non-mandatory (doctrinal documents, acts of unauthorized state bodies, rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) and mandatory (decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and decisions of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) interpretation.

ISSUES OF IMPROVING THE INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL FINE

The purpose of this article is to consider issues of improving the institution of a judicial fine in the Russian criminal law. The authors consider the similarity in name with other institutions and the direct connection with the provisions of Article 46 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors present different views on the conceptual apparatus of the problem under consideration and its limitation from similar definitions in the field of civil procedure, and also make proposals to change the name for a clearer differentiation. The prospects for reforming the judicial fine in the context of improving criminal legal mechanisms are discussed. Conclusions: It is proposed to establish restrictions on exemption from criminal liability in connection with the imposition of a court fine and the termination of criminal prosecution. These restrictions are proposed to be extended not only by category of crime, but also by the object of the crime, as well as by the nature and degree of public danger. That is, it is proposed to exclude the possibility of applying a judicial fine for certain crimes provided for by individual articles of the special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Adaptation of Sharia Law to Russian Criminal Law by Population of Western Turkestan and Siberian Bukharans in Late 18th — Early 20th Centuries

This article examines the state policy of aligning Muslim law with Russian legislation in different cultural-historical contexts. It is demonstrated that the implementation of this mechanism was carried out among the Siberian Bukharans in the late 18th century, and from the second half of the 19th century, these methods were applied to Western Turkestan under the protectorate of the Russian Empire. Sources include documents from the Central State Archive of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the State Archive of the Tyumen Region in Tobolsk. The re-search methodology is based on the systems theory of K. L. von Bertalanffy, utilizing comparative-historical and comparative-legal research methods. The authors conclude that the dissonance between Russian legislation and Western Turkestan not only reflected differences between two distinct legal systems and religious-legal cultures but primarily highlighted the gap between medieval and contemporary legal concepts for that time. The adaptation of Western Turkestan to Russian legislation shaped unified legal concepts and paved the way for transforming the multi-confessional population of the Russian Empire into a unified civic entity. This laid the groundwork for the coexistence of Uzbekistan and Russia within the USSR and later facilitated the development of an independent Uzbekistan using legislation closely aligned with Russian and European legal systems.

The Essence and Meaning of Repetition in the Criminal Law of Russia

Introduction. From the standpoint of a critical analysis of the current criminal legislation of Russia, as well as the doctrine of criminal law and criminology, the article examines the essence and significance of the institution of repetition in the criminal law of Russia. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The research was carried out taking into account the directions of criminal policy in Russia, the constitutional analysis of normative legal provisions on responsibility for committing crimes. The use of the formal-logical research method made it possible to identify the essence and types of repetition in criminal law, and to establish the patterns of its implementation in criminal law. Results. In the course of the study, attention is drawn to the fact that the formation of the concept of “repeatedness”, in the context of the development of the sociological school of criminal law, implied the attribution to this institution, first of all, of situations of committing several criminal acts, bearing in mind the objective danger to society of the multiplicity of crimes and persons who commit them (for example, recidivists and professional criminals). At the same time, not only the multiplicity of crimes poses a danger to society and the State, but also the commission of other unlawful acts, which, if repeated, in some cases can acquire a qualitatively different character and reach the level of a criminal act. This position is the basis of the current institution of repetition and, in particular, the institution of administrative prejudice. In this regard, the presented work examines the essence, types, and meaning of repetition in its existing version in the criminal law of Russia. Discussion and Сonclusion. The problems of repetition are also considered in the aspect of the correlation of this institution with the theory of the dangerous state of the individual, the principle of the prohibition of punishment twice for the same act. The indicated aspects of the topic necessitated the appeal not only to works on the theory of criminal law, but also to the relevant issues of philosophy and logic. As a result, the author concludes that such a type of multiplicity as the repetition of offenses is singled out, the types of this multiplicity are determined and its importance for the criminalization and decriminalization of crimes is substantiated.

PROSPECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT THE LINGUISTIC FORM OF THE RUSSIAN CRIMINAL LAW TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OF THE KYRGYZ EXPERIENCE

The article considers the basic theoretical provisions on the importance of the comparative legal method in scienti c researches and in the practice of national criminal law-making. The article proves the admissibility and expediency of using the comparative legal method in the scienti c substantiation of ways to improve the linguistic form of the Russian criminal law. It is speci ed that the possibilities of the comparative legal method in this area are limited, as each national law is written in the original na-tional language, which has features of the lexical composition and grammatical structure, therefore, it is not the national systems of lexical and grammatical means themselves that are important for improving the linguistic form of the Russian criminal law, but rather positive experience with regard to general approaches to their use in the formulation of the content of criminal law prescriptions. Based on the analysis of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, a number of successful legislative decisions are identi ed in terms of giving precision and clarity to the language of criminal law, attention is focused on the pragmatic function of legislative de nitions, revealing the meaning of terms used in criminal law and giving them strictly xed normative content, which contributes to the formation of uniform law enforcement practice; and it is substantiated that the Kyrgyz experience in this area deserves the close attention of the Russian legislator.

Admissible Risks in Criminal Law

The specifics of criminal liability for acts involving causing harm as a result of lawful hazardous activities are not regulated in Russian criminal law. There is no uniform solution to these issues in legal theory and jurisprudence. Mens rea under such circumstances is not a satisfactory criterion for distinguishing lawful activity from a crime. The rule on necessity (duress of circumstances) does not solve the problem. The rule on justified risk provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not reflect legal reality. In the law of foreign countries, this problem is solved through a detailed definition of elements of a crime associated with dangerous activities, doctrinal justification of objective imputability, and introducing an ethical assessment when establishing a causal relationship. In Russian law, this problem is significant for legal practice; it has not been resolved and requires a solution.

Общественно значимая информация как предмет преступлений против общественной безопасности

This article presents the results of a study of the legal significance of the category “socially significant information”, which is a novel in modern Russian criminal law. The content of this formulation is revealed, predetermined by the fact that it implies any information relevant to society, that is, information about events or facts that relate to an indefinite circle of people and are able to influence their vital activity. The correlation of categories of socially significant information and information about circumstances that pose a threat to the life and safety of citizens has been established. The conclusion is made, confirmed by the materials of judicial practice, according to which socially significant information covers the concept of these circumstances in its content. At the same time, it is substantiated that socially significant information is also the subject of crimes consisting in knowingly false reporting of an act of terrorism, as well as in spreading false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. In addition, the article notes that an important feature of socially significant information as the subject of crimes provided for in Chapter 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is its ability to influence public safety.

On the relationship between the General and Special parts Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The General and Special Parts are paired structural components of the criminal law. It is more logical to consider the interaction of the General and Special parts in the context of such a scientific and philosophical category as correlation. This article examines the relationship between the General and Special parts of the criminal law in the philosophical, socio-legal and legal-technical senses. In a philosophical sense, the General and the Special, these parts are organically connected with each other according to the dialectic of the relationship between the “general and the particular”. From a socio-legal point of view, the unity of the General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is manifested in the fact that both parts serve common tasks; the normative prescriptions of both parts are based on the same principles; properties of specific crimes and punishments for them are provided in both parts. From the legal and technical side, the unity of the General and Special parts of the criminal code lies in its systemic structure. The work identifies both similar and distinctive features between the two paired components of modern Russian criminal law. Prospects for further research into the relationship between the General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are seen in the development and approval of the Concept for the construction of Russian criminal law.

Proof and proving: legislative technique of criminal procedure laws of the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation

Proof and proving lies at the heart of criminal procedure regulation, significantly impacting the quality of law enforcement. In the post-Soviet states that once shared a unified legal system during the USSR dissolution, original criminal procedural laws emerged, exhibiting intriguting examples of evidence and proof rules’ layout. The purpose of the study is to discern the distinct design characteristics of evidence and prove institutions in the criminal procedure laws of the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation. The study’s methodological framework rests upon the general scientific principles of cognition such as objectivity, comprehensiveness, pluralism, and historicism. It employs historical, formal-logical and comparative methods, as well as document analysis. By comparing the normative models of evidence and proof institutions in Moldovan and Russian criminal procedure laws, a shared approach to the concept of evidence as a fusion of form and content becomes apparent. Distinct features of the Moldovan criminal procedure law include the systemic and structured arrangement of evidence rules, the formal adoption of the concept of a means of proof, and precise use of terminology. Conversely, the Russian criminal procedure law disperses evidence rules actoss general and specialized sections, leading to regulatory duplications and terminologicals inaccuracies. The historical roots of the evidence and proof institution layout trace back to November 20, 1864, Charter of Criminal Procedure. The Charter’s systematization of norms reflected the nuances of the pre-revolutionary Russian process. Despite the subsequent stage structuring evolution during the Soviet era and procedural form differentiation, the Soviet legislator retained the pre-revolutionary rules’ systematization on evidence. Presently, the current criminal procedure law maintains much of the previous regulatory content, highlighting essential areas for enhancement in evidence and proof institution design to allign more closely with the process’ stage structure and procedural form differentiation, thus mitigating potential abuse of rights. Addressing these design shortcomings is crucial. Rectifing Russian legistation following the comparative study allows drawing insights from Moldova’s legislative experience.

Development of a System of Sources Russian Criminal Law

The formal source of criminal law should be recognized as those legal acts that can be directly applied by courts in resolving criminal cases and to which the court must directly refer in a court decision to justify its decision. The criminal law doctrine has convincingly proven the multi-source nature of the branch of criminal law. At the same time, the modern doctrine of sources sorely lacks a differentiated approach to their analysis and presentation. The implementation of a systematic approach in the context of a general theoretical doctrine of the forms of expression of law allows us to identify several substantively divergent groups among the sources of criminal law: a) sources of regulation of criminal legal relations that do not contain criminal legal regulations; b) sources establishing criminal legal regulations, including the criminal code as the only source establishing crime and punishability of socially dangerous acts; c) sources of normative specification of criminal legal regulations; d) sources of interpretation of criminal law regulations. Keywords: source of criminal law, systematic approach, source of establishing an order, source of specifying an order, source of interpretation of an order.

Responsibility of Minors in the History of Criminal Law in Russia (before 1845)

Introduction. The main purpose of the work is to show how the criminal legislation of the Russian Empire has evolved in the matter of the age of a person capable of being responsible or serving the sentences imposed on him. To achieve this goal, the paper analyzes the legislative norms of different eras (before 1845) using the scientific works of pre-revolutionary Russian legal scholars on the subject of the study.Materials and methods. The methods applied in the course of the study (historical, formal-legal, logical, dialectical) showed that for several centuries in the criminal law of Russia, the age of the person who committed the crime had no legal significance. The situation changed with the adoption of New Proof Articles in 1669, which for the first time established the exact age at which a person could be responsible for what he had done – 7 years. Subsequently, this age changed many times – the legislator then raised it, then restored it.Results of the study. The analysis showed that, during the period under study, the question of the age of responsibility for crimes was resolved inconsistently, often contradictory.Discussion and conclusion. The study showed that, most importantly, age was not considered as an independent criminal-legal sign, but only within the framework of the sign of sanity.