Differentiation Of Criminal Liability Research Articles

СТАНОВЛЕНИЕ И РАЗВИТИЕ НАУЧНОЙ ШКОЛЫ «УГОЛОВНО-ПРАВОВЫЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ И КРИМИНОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ АСПЕКТЫ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЙ И ОРГАНОВ УГОЛОВНО-ИСПОЛНИТЕЛЬНОЙ СИСТЕМЫ»

In the article, the authors refer to the period of formation of the scientific school "Criminal law relations and criminological aspects of the activities of institutions and bodies of the penal enforcement system", which was created by Soviet scientists- penitentiaries of the criminal law, criminology and the organization of crime prevention Departments of the Ryazan Higher School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia: Doctor of Law, Professor N. A. Ogurtsov; Candidate of Law, Associate Professor G. V. Drovosekov; Doctor of Law, Professor V. A. Eleonsky; Doctor of Law, Professor V. I. Guskov; Doctor of Law, Professor N. S. Artemyev. Information is briefly presented on the contribution to the development of the scientific school of each of its founders, as well as on the current heads of the scientific school – Doctor of Law, Professor K. A. Sych and Doctor of Law, Professor A. Ya. Grishko. The scientific school "Criminal law relations and criminological aspects of the activities of institutions and bodies of the penal system" is a specific form of organizing the scientific activities of employees and employees of these departments, as well as students – cadets, students, adjuncts and doctoral students. Within the framework of the scientific school's activities, the results of collective and author's scientific research devoted to the study of the theoretical foundations of the formation and differentiation of criminal liability; criminal punishment and its composition have been published; the specifics and procedure for exemption from criminal punishment; criminological characteristics of certain types of crimes; personality characteristics of criminals; legal and criminological aspects of anti-corruption activities, as well as other problems.

Урахування загальних засад призначення покарання у разі його призначення за вчинення кримінального право-порушення, передбаченого ст. 270 КК України

The article emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to the general sentencing principles for adequately implementing the principle of legality in criminal law. The author emphasizes that, unfortunately, the practice of sentencing for a criminal offense under Article 270, “Violation of fire or industrial safety requirements established by law” of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the CC of Ukraine) is almost unexplored. The analysis of the practice of sentencing for committing an act under Art. 270 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is based on the study of more than 50 verdicts publicly available in the Unified Register of Court Decisions. The author notes that there are no cases when a court exceeded the sanction when imposing a sentence for an act under Art. 270 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine indicates that the sanction for this offense formalized by the legislator is appropriate. The author notes the almost complete absence of cases of imposing punishment for an act under Part 1 of Article 270 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which indicates the absolute non-prevalence of this unlawful act in Ukraine. The author determines the list of provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine which should be considered when sentencing. The author notes the problematic nature of direct consideration of the degree of gravity of the offense committed when imposing punishment, especially in the context of such consideration under Article 12 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The author determines that the analysis of the perpetrator’s personality as an element of the sentencing principle can form an idea of the portrait of a typical offender who commits a particular offense, which may further improve the activities aimed at its prevention. The article analyzes the main characteristics of persons brought to criminal liability for committing an act under Article 270 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The author determines that there is no significant diversity in the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that are considered by the court when imposing a sentence for an act under Article 270 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Keywords: criminal liability, sentencing, general principles, personality of the perpetrator, violation of fire or industrial safety requirements established by law, fire safety, industrial safety, differentiation of criminal liability, individualisation of punishment.

Liability for Violation of the Obligation of Care in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Poland

The problem of non-fulfilment or improper fulfillment by parents (persons who replace them) of childcare responsibilities exists in all countries, regardless of the form of government, state system, and income level of the population. Ukraine has been in the process of integration with the European Union for a long time, so it is useful to study the foreign legislative approach to the regulation of responsibility for the violation of these obligations. The purpose of the article is to study the Polish experience of establishing criminal liability for non-fulfilment of child care obligations. In the research dogmatic, systemic-structural, statistical, historical-legal, formal-legal methods were used. Attention is paid to the legislation of the Republic of Poland, which provides for the right and duty of parents to care for and raise children. The genesis of the criminal law regarding responsibility for violation of these duties in the Criminal Code of 1932, 1969, and 1997 is given. Statistical data on the number of criminal proceedings and persons convicted of this criminal offense (2009–2020) are summarized. The peculiarities of the structure of the crime composition provided for in Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Poland were studied; objective and subjective signs. The analysis was carried out on the basis of the doctrine of Polish criminal law and the practice of courts of general jurisdiction, in particular the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland. The practice of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland was used. Based on the results of the research, conclusions were formulated regarding objects of criminal law protection; objective and subjective side and subject composition. The differentiation of criminal liability in case of causing death to the victim was noted. The legislator also provided in cases of this crime the possibility of notifying the competent family court about the expediency of deprivation or limitation of parental or guardian rights in case of committing a crime to the detriment of a minor or in complicity with him. The separation of an independent structural section (subsection) in the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which includes criminal offenses against the family, as well as the improvement of criminal legal measures against persons who have committed such crimes, is supported.

Дифференциация и индивидуализация уголовной ответственности и наказания соучастников преступления

When a crime is jointly committed by several persons, the limits of criminal liability of accomplices of the crime are determined by the differentiation of responsibility and punishment enshrined in the criminal law and the individualization carried out by the court. Differentiation of criminal liability and punishment of accomplices is manifested through the constructive features of the corpus delicti, as well as through qualified corpus delicti. Moreover, the same feature can have different criminal law significance. It is justified that the signs of corpus delicti that form a new sanction determine the nature of the public danger of the crime and reflect the differen-tiation of responsibility and punishment. Other circumstances of committing a crime constitute the degree of public danger and affect the individualization of responsibility and punishment. The more complete and clear the criminal law norms are, the less judicial discretion in choosing the measure of punishment in a particular case. Controversial legislative provisions enshrining criminal liability of accomplices to a crime are presented.

Criminal offenses against finances under the draft of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine

The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of the project of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine, devoted to imposing liability for criminal offenses against finances. It has been established that, despite the generally innovative and progressive nature of these provisions, some of them are debatable. The conclusions of the article include suggestions aimed at their improvement.
 In particular, it has been proven that the circumstances proposed in the project, which increase the severity of financial crimes, are partly such that they contradict requirements for the content of qualifying features developed in the criminal law doctrine as a means of differentiating criminal liability.
 Both “separate” description of such crimes as counterfeiting money and dealing with counterfeit money, as well as classification of these offenses as crimes of the 5th degree of severity, have been criticized.
 It was established that one of the serious (systemic) shortcomings of the project is the numerous inconsistencies between the degrees of severity of specific criminal offenses defined in its Special Part and the types of damage established in the General Part.
 It is shown that the current version of the stimulating provision, designed for tax evasion and non-payment due to carelessness of a tax, fee or single contribution to mandatory state social insurance: a) is able to unreasonably expand the subject composition of these crimes at the expense of persons who voluntarily participate in the system of mandatory state social insurance; b) does not take into account the fact that the subject of tax crimes and the organization which is legally the payer of tax and social contributions do not coincide.
 The expediency of a clearer delineation of such crimes as credit fraud and theft, as well as specifying the actions that will constitute the crime of “abuse of the financial interests of the European Union”, is indicated.
 The debatable clauses inherent in the definition of a predicate act are defined. The impropriety of singling out such form of the objective side of legalization (laundering) of assets (income) obtained through criminal means, as providing assistance to a person involved in legalization (laundering) to avoid liability for what he did, has been proven.
 Key words: criminal offenses against finance, money counterfeiting, payment means and instruments, credit fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, legalization, assets obtained through crime, predicate act, differentiation of criminal liability.

Differentiation of criminal liability in unfinished criminal offenses

The article deals with issues related to the differentiation of criminal responsibility in case of preparation or attempt to commit a criminal act. The author expressed arguments that social danger is always evident by the preparation of towers on the one hand and by an attempt and completed crime on the other. However, establishing a clear difference between the public danger of an attempt and a completed criminal offense is premature and requires assessment at the stage of individualization of criminal responsibility. There are not always reasons for ascertaining a clear decrease in the level of public danger committed at the stage of an attempt. That is why the imperative approach to the differentiation of criminal responsibility between an attempt and a finished criminal offense by means of a mandatory reduction of the maximum penalty is cause for concern. It is more justified to solve this issue not categorically, that is, not by differentiating criminal responsibility, but by individualizing the latter. It is proposed that criminal liability for preparation should be imposed only for the range of criminal offenses clearly defined in a separate article of the General Part of the Criminal Code, based on taking into account the object of the offense and the nature of the socially dangerous act. It is not enough to base only on the categorization of criminal offenses to determine the range of those compounds, the preparation of which should attract criminal liability. As a result, the lack of grounds for imperative differentiation of criminal responsibility between an attempt and a completed crime is substantiated, in particular, it is worth abandoning the legislative approach to reducing the upper limit of the most severe punishment in the case of an attempt. At the same time, lowering the upper limit of the most severe punishment in the case of preparation for a criminal offense is correct. Key words: differentiation, criminal liability, preparation, attempt, stage.

Subjects of Criminal Bankruptcy: Assessment of Legislative Novelties and Perspectives of their Enforcement

Allocation of qualified criminal bankruptcy structures based on the characteristics of the subject will definitely solve the problem of disproportion in the number of reported crimes and sentences due to stricter sanctions and, as a result, longer periods of limitation for criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, violations of technical and legal rules committed in the process of rulemaking resulted in the situation when designs of illegal actions in bankruptcy and intentional bankruptcy are divided into two groups: acts committed by debtors-citizens, and acts committed in connection with the business activities of legal entities. At the same time, identity of socially dangerous consequences laid down by the legislator in both groups of bankruptcies and unsettled sanctions for the commission of the corresponding crimes allowed the author to raise the question of violation of the principle of equality, which cannot be justified by the differentiation of criminal liability. In turn, unjustified reception of insolvency law provisions will lead to the situation when determining the signs of a controlling debtor, judicial practice will follow a path similar to the establishment of a situation of unlawful actions in bankruptcy, which contradicts the insolvency law and the practice of its application. In addition, there is a risk that innovations provided for under Part 2.1 Article 195 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will in no way affect the heads of debtor organizations. The author concludes that it is not expedient to supplement Article 195 of the Criminal Code with Part 4 and provides the wording for Parts 1, 1.1, 2.1 of Article 195, Part 1, 2 of Article 196 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with due regard to the meaning laid down by the law-maker when reforming relevant criminal law rules and the rules for designing the elements of crimes.

Legislative novels on differentiation of criminal liability for violation of rules of protection or use of subsoil and illegal mining

Legislative novels on differentiation of criminal liability for violation of rules of protection or use of subsoil and illegal mining

Criminal Misconduct: An Objective Need or a Declared Necessity?

The actively defended idea of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the inclusion of an offencse of criminal misconduct in the criminal legislation was reflected in the revised draft federal law submitted to the Parliament on October 13, 2020. The purpose of the study is to determine the key changes in the content of the institutions of criminal misconduct and other measures of a criminal law nature proposed for consolidation in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to assess the objective need of the reforms initiated by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The methodological basis is a set of methods of scientific knowledge. General scientific (analysis and synthesis, dialectics) and specific scientific research methods (system structural, formal legal) were used. A comparative analysis of draft laws allows us to classify the substantive content of acts constituting a criminal misconduct as key changes and the modification of other measures of a criminal legal nature. The authors critically assess the idea underlying the classification of acts as criminal misconduct. By laying in the criteria for the isolation of acts that are minimal in terms of the degree of danger, not legally significant elements of corpus delicti, but the types and amount of punishments, the lack of criminal experience, the interests of the business community, the developers of the draft law violate the system of law, since the proposed approach excludes the assessment of the public danger of the act based on the significance of the protected by the criminal the law of public relations. The meaning of the differentiation of criminal liability declared by the initiator of the reforms is lost with the proposed duplication of other measures applied both to persons who have committed a criminal misconduct and to those guilty of committing crimes of small or medium gravity, and the proposed conditional nature of other measures levels the idea of liberalizing the criminal law. The paper focuses on the provisions of the project that require revision and additional comprehension.

The crime of specially audacious theft (Art. 278a § 1 of the Criminal Code)

The article is a critical analysis of the newly introduced off ence of particularly au-dacious theft (Article 278a § 1 of the Criminal Code), which constitutes a return to the regulation contained in the penal code of 1969 in force in the Polish People’s Republic. Executive features are defi ned in the glossary of statutory expressions in Article 115 § 9a of the Penal Code, which, however, does not change the fact that these signs were formulated in a judgemental and blurred way. Notwithstanding this, such a signifi cant diff erentiation of criminal liability by returning to the solutions of the 1969 Code is un-justifi ed.

DIFFERENTIATION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR BRIBERY AND 
 COMMERCIAL PAYMENT

The article examines the differentiation of criminal liability for bribery and commercial payment. The au-thor comes to the conclusion that the size of a bribery and commercial payment should not be the main criterion for assessing the degree of public danger of bribery

Economy and criminalization: mutual responsibility and interaction

The article presents an analysis of the impact of the economy and criminalization is presented. The main directions of the influence of property relations and economic relations on the formation, dynamics of criminal law prohibitions and differentiation of criminal liability are shown. The mechanism of such an effect is disclosed. The features of the reverse effect of legislation on economic relations and the peculiarities of its consideration in the criminalization of offenses in the field of economy are determined. The limited possibilities of such an effect are proved. The necessity of attracting the methodological capabilities of the economic analysis of the right to the content of criminalization processes is argued

Differentiation of criminal liability for various forms of high treason

The article is devoted to the differentiation of criminal liability for various forms of treason. Using the experience of Ukraineafter the occupation of its territories by the Russian Federation in 2014 and legal doctrine, analyzed some forms of crime under Art. 111of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.Such forms of treason are considered as: 1) transition to the side of the enemy in a state of martial law or during an armed conflict;2) espionage; 3) providing assistance to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out subversive activitiesagainst Ukraine. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the statistics of convictions for treason and the actual number of servicemen, lawenforcement officers, judges, and civil servants who have sided with the enemy differ significantly. Difficulties and contradictions inlaw enforcement are revealed, ways of their elimination are offered.Based on the study of each of the forms of treason, the responsibility for which is provided by Art. 111 of the Criminal Code ofUkraine, revealed a significant difference in the degree of public danger of such acts. Analysis of the practice of national courts also showsthat for this crime under Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine often imposed a milder punishment than provided by law. Ta king intoaccount the above, as well as the experience of the legislation of states such as Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, it is proposed to providein a separate article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to allocate such a form of treason as providing assistance to a foreign state, foreignorganization or their representatives. According to the author, this act should be defined as a not particularly serious crime, which shouldbe punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years. This will avoid the unjustified severity of the criminal law, and in the event of a politicaldecision to reintegrate the occupied territories, apply amnesty to those who will be prosecuted for such a crime after the conviction.

Abolition of the moratorium on the circulation of agricultural land – is the criminal law of Ukraine ready for this?

The article clarifies the question of whether the current law of Ukraine on criminal liability needs to be changed in connection with the lifting of the moratorium on the circulation of agricultural land and the expected opening of the market for such land.It is proved that from the methodological standpoint it is more correct, when analyzing the relevant torts, to operate not with the term «abuse in the land market», which is popular in the legal literature, but with the wording «abuse in the sphere of land circulation».Based on the study of the relevant historical (drafts of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and foreign (criminal codes of Azerbaijan, Russian Federation and some other countries) experience, as well as taking into account the doctrine of criminalization and differentiation of criminal liability, it is concluded that the introduction of special criminal law prohibitions in the field of land circulation is not expedient.In particular, it is proved that the amendment of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by the provision on liability for illegal registration of an illegal transaction with a land plot will violate such a systemic legal principle of criminalization as the principle of absence of gaps in the law and absence of excessive prohibition. The shortcomings of the doctrinal proposal to supplement the Criminal Code of Ukraine with a norm on abuse of the land market with an abstract disposition are demonstrated. Existing norms on criminal liability for crimes in the sphere of official activity and professional activity related to the provision of public services and crimes against property can be qualified as abuse in the sphere of land circulation are demonstrated. It is believed that the prevalence of these abuses is not the result of gaps in the current substantive law on criminal liability, but, inter alia, the result of failure to ensure the principle of inevitability of criminal response to the commission of already prohibited criminal offenses.

Множинність злочинів: до питання про вдосконалення диференціації кримінальної відповідальності

Кількість вчинених особою злочинів істотно підвищує суспільну небезпеку діянь винного. Адже і обсяг шкоди чи загрози заподіяння шкоди об’єкту, і формування злочинної спеціалізації, і створення ілюзії безкарності, і інші фактори свідчать на користь того, що множинність злочинів має значення як засіб диференціації кримінальної відповідальності. Втім, у чинному Кримінальному кодексі України множинність злочинів не завжди впливає на варіативну регламентацію заходів кримінально-правового впливу. Навпаки, значна кількість випадків сукупності злочинів (окрім сукупності, у якій хоча б один із злочинів є умисним тяжким або особливо тяжким) практично не має кримінально-правового значення для обсягу кримінальної відповідальності. Також випадки повторного чи рецидивного вчинення злочину впливають на посилення кримінальної відповідальності, якщо у складі вчиненого винним злочину є відповідні кваліфікуючі ознаки. Якщо ж ці ознаки відсутні, суд може врахувати повторність чи рецидив як ознаку, яка посилює покарання. Проте у будь-якому разі правозастосувач не зможе вийти за межі санкції статті Особливої частини КК.
 Метою статті є виявлення недоліків диференціації кримінальної відповідальності у разі сукупності, повторності чи рецидиву злочинів. Також планується запропонувати шляхи вдосконалення диференційованого підходу до відповідальності за множинність злочинів, врахування одночасного впливу на посилення відповідальності інших типових кваліфікуючих ознак.
 Наукова новизна статті полягає у наданні рекомендації вдосконалення диференціації кримінальної відповідальності за вчинення злочинів у сукупності, повторності та у разі рецидиву. Вирішено проблему одночасного врахування кваліфікуючої ознаки організованої групи та ознак множинності.
 Висновки. 1) Межі диференціюючого значення множинності злочинів для кримінальної відповідальності мають встановлюватися на рівні закону, а тому не потрібно делегувати цю роль суду без визначених у КК чітких правил визначення кінцевого покарання за множинність; 2) кваліфікуючі ознаки повторності та рецидиву можуть бути виключені зі статей Особливої частини КК і передбачені у Загальній частині з відповідними коефіцієнтами впливу на суворість кримінальної відповідальності; 3) призначаючи покарання за сукупністю злочинів, суд має мати можливість застосовувати покарання вище ніж те, що передбачене у статті Особливої частини КК, проте воно не повинно перевищувати розмір, встановлений у ст. 12 КК для злочину відповідного ступеня тяжкості; 4) якщо усі злочини, що входять у множинність, вчинено у складі організованої групи (якщо ця ознака передбачена як кваліфікуюча), то множинність не повинна посилювати кримінальну відповідальність.

DIFFERENTIATION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS

The aim: Determining the need to differentiate the criminal liability of medical workers for damage caused in the course of professional activity. Materials and methods: This following research is based on an analysis of laws (21 laws), court judgments and case files (108 judgments and 8 case files), judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (4) and the legal doctrine of criminal law. Comparative, systematic, analytic, and empiric methods have been used in this research. During the preparation of this article the results of personal experience of the scientific work (17 years), the experience of advocacy (11 years), and the experience of the Supreme Court's judge have been applied. Results: The analysis of case files, thoughts of scientists and lawyers-practitioners allowed to propose criteria and indicators influencing increasing or decreasing of social dangerousness of actions committed by medical professionals. It is noted that the necessity of the legislator to consider the close interrelation of professional medical services and influence on the health of persons who demand medical services or need health care during differentiation of criminal liability. Conclusions: The necessity of differentiating approach to the criminal liability of medical professionals who inflict health damages or death is stated in comparison with the liability of general subjects of a crime.

”Bribe-taking “ and “bribe-extortion” as criteria of differentiation of responsibility for bribery

The paper is devoted to the issues of validity of differentiation of criminal liability for bribery depending on the legality or illegality of the civil servant’s conduct preconditioned by a bribe. Special attention is paid to the study of the legal nature of bribe-extortion, i.e. bribery for illegal actions (omissions to act). It is concluded that bribery for illegal actions (omissions to act) in office is not only a qualified element of the crime, but rather an independent main element of the crime entailing more severe criminal punishment due to the increased degree of public danger of this form of bribery. On this basis, it is recommended that the rules for the legislative formulation of qualified elements of crimes should not apply to such a form of bribery as bribe-taking. The opinion of some foreign legislators expressed in the theory of criminal law that the elements of bribery for illegal actions (omissions to act) should be excluded from the criminal law is refuted.

ОБЩАЯ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА КВАЛИФИЦИРУЮЩИХ ПРИЗНАКОВ И ИХ ЗНАЧЕНИЕ ПРИ КОНСТРУИРОВАНИИ СОСТАВОВ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЙ

We consider qualifying signs of the crime as one of the forms of differentiation of criminal liability, reflecting the qualitative characteristics of the criminal act. Also we analyze the doctrinal approaches to the two most controversial issues of the theory of criminal law concerning the nature and content of qualifying signs: their correlation with the circumstances aggravating the punishment, as well as a constructive connection with the corpus delicti. We draw a conclusion that such qualifying signs as the criminal law category have a dual nature. On the one hand, they are comparable to the aggravating circumstances listed in article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the other hand, they are expressed in the norms of the Special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as constructive signs of corpus delicti the strengthening of the level of criminal repression in relation to the basic composition of the relevant crime. In particular it is a constructive connection with the corpus delicti expresses the most popular in the literature classification of qualifying signs of the circumstances relating to: the object and the objective side, the subject and the subjective side of corpus delicti. We propose interpretation of the concept of qualifying signs, which are indicated by the circumstances, which is a constructive element of the corpus delicti, which indicate increased relative to the basic corpus delicti of public danger of the act and the identity of the person committing the act.

Статусно-ролевое положение преступника и потерпевшего как критерий дифференциации уголовной ответственности по законодательству Древней Руси

Статусно-ролевое положение преступника и потерпевшего как критерий дифференциации уголовной ответственности по законодательству Древней Руси

Vagystę kvalifikuojančio požymio - organizuotos grupės - samprata teisės moksle ir teismų praktikoje, bei kai kurie kvalifikavimo ypatumai

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 178 straipsnio (vagystė) 3 dalyje numatytas kvalifikuojamasis veikos požymis – organizuota grupė, pateikiama šio požymio samprata baudžiamosios teisės moksle ir teismų praktikoje, atskleidžiami jo inkriminavimo bei kvalifikavimo ypatumai.