Exemption from Criminal Responsibility by Virtue of Reconciliation with Injured Party in Case of Neonaticide Committed by a Mother

10.12737/7632 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Денис Гарбатович ◽  
Denis Garbatovich

The article deals with the grounds on which a person may be relieved of criminal responsibility in connection with reconciliation with the victim. In accordance with Article 76 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that is based on the simultaneous implementation of the following conditions: 1) for the first time a crime of small or average gravity; 2) reconciliation with the victim; 3) compensation of harm caused to the victim. The face in the presence of the above conditions are not necessarily subject to unconditional exemption from criminal liability, this right depends on the discretion of a law enforcement official. Through an analysis of the norms of criminal law, judicial practice addresses the question whether it is permissible to exempt from criminal responsibility in connection with reconciliation with the victim´s mother, who killed her newborn child. Victims can be considered the closest relatives of the murdered child (father, grandparents)who are also relatives and friends in relation to the mother-killer. Victims may initially not interested in bringing her to justice and appropriate compensation to victims can be represented as some Convention and formality. Mother release from criminal responsibility for the murder of a newborn child in such circumstances, does not comply with the principle of justice, and not adequately solves the problem of the criminal code of the Russian Federation for the protection of the rights and freedoms against crime. Therefore, in the presented work provides General guidance on when such exemption from criminal liability is possible, and when it is not desirable.

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 83-92
Author(s):  
V. K. Andrianov ◽  

Analysis of judicial practice shows that the greatest difficulties and errors in the courts and the prosecutors and investigators in the application of exemption from criminal liability, related to the issues of legal facts. It is no coincidence that most of the content of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 27 June 2013 No. 19 is devoted to clarifying questions about legal facts provided for by the norms of Chapter 11 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The purpose of this article is the legal and factual analysis of the release of the institute of criminal responsibility, which is in the general theory of law recognized by specific methodological direction in the explanation of legal phenomena In the article we developed a number of questions of legal conditions and facts with which the criminal law links the exemption from criminal liability: on the concept of the person who committed the crime for the first time; on exemption from criminal liability in the event of the commission of an unfinished crime and a crime of complicity; on the types of legal facts serving as the basis for such consequences; the amount of positive post-criminal behavior required for release; competition between the grounds for exemption from criminal liability; on the role of other social circumstances, when making the appropriate decision, etc.


Author(s):  
Alexander V. Shesler ◽  
◽  

The article examines criminal acts, with which the law associates certain criminal legal consequences. The aim of the article is to substantiate the identification of various criminal acts and show their specificity in comparison with crimes. The research is based on the domestic criminal legislation, materials of judicial practice and the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany. The research methods are: the method of comparative law, which allowed comparing the provisions about criminal offenses in the 1960 Criminal Code of the RSFSR and in the 1996 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of Germany; the method of document analysis, which made it possible to analyze the judicial practice and proposals of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of provisions on criminal offences in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; the formal-logical method that made it possible to analyze the content of the norms of the Criminal Code about criminal acts. The article concludes that, in addition to crimes, criminal acts should include: a criminal offence, which entails criminal liability in the form of replacing punishment with a more severe one (fine, compulsory labor, correctional labor, restriction of freedom as the main type of punishment, forced labor) or criminal liability in the form of the cancellation of any type of probation (suspended sentence, parole, deferred sentence, deferred sentence for drug addicts); a minor act; socially dangerous behavior of persons who are not subjects of a crime due to their minor age or insanity; innocent infliction of harm. The article shows the specificity of a misdemeanour, consisting in the fact that this act is not socially dangerous, does not contain signs of a crime, violates the liability of the convicted person to be subject to limitations arising from the court-appointed punishment or type of probation (suspended sentence, parole, deferred sentence, deferred sentence for drug addicts). It is substantiated that a minor act should be referred to circumstances that exclude the criminality of an act due to the absence of public danger, an essential feature of a crime. It is argued that acts, provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed in a state of insanity and entailing compulsory medical measures, should not be subject to criminal law. The article criticizes the judicial practice of a broad interpretation of the commission of a crime by a group of persons, according to which it is not only a co-execution, but also any execution of the objective side of the crime by several persons, of which only one can be the perpetrator. It is argued that causing harm due to the non-compliance of the psychophysiological qualities of a person with the requirements of an extreme situation does not apply to innocent infliction of harm.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-106
Author(s):  
V.V. Kusakin ◽  

The article is devoted to the analysis of Article 350 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for criminal liability for violation of the rules of driving or operating cars, the evolution of this article and the problems of sentencing under it are considered. One of the suggestions for improving this article is to change its sanction, which will eliminate the identified significant legal gap. The author conducted a comprehensive analysis of various aspects related to the criminal violation of traffic safety rules and the operation of military vehicles, and proposed the author's solution to the problematic aspects. The study used specific dialectical methods: comparative, hermeneutical, discursive, formal-legal, as well as some sociological methods: observation, methods of expert assessments and analysis. The provisions contained in the materials of the article can be used to improve the current criminal legislation and to develop explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in reviews of judicial practice.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 150-158
Author(s):  
K. V. Dyadyun

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
N. N. Korotkikh

The article analyzes some of the controversial, in the opinion of the author, recommendations of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of 15.05.2018 «On the practice of the courts applying the provisions of paragraph 6 Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation». Lowering the category of crime always requires clear criteria by which the actions of the defendant could be qualified with a change in the gravity of the crime. Based on examples from judicial practice, the thesis is substantiated that “taking into account the factual circumstances of the case” and “the degree of its public danger” are evaluative e criteria and do not always allow to decide the validity of the application of part 6 article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The discrepancy between some of the recommendations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is shown. It is concluded that it is impossible to exempt a person from criminal liability on the grounds specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
E.R. Gafurova

This article examines the features of the Russian criminal law norm that provides for liability for the murder of a newborn child by a mother. We analyzed the data of the Judicial Department on the statistics of convicts for 2016 and 2019 under Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in relation to the indicators of other privileged elements of murder, indicating the latency of this type of crime. The article also examines some features of the legislative structure of Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, accompanied by examples of judicial practice. The article examines the criminal law norms providing for responsibility for infanticide, the legislation of Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark, and highlights the distinctive features of Article 106 of the Russian criminal legislation. The article presents proposals for possible improvement of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on responsibility for the murder of a newborn child by a mother, confirmed by the indicators of a sociological study.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 18-20
Author(s):  
Bagautdinov F.N. ◽  
◽  
Sharifullin R.A. ◽  

The article deals with some issues of bringing citizens of the Russian Federation to criminal responsibility for participation in illegal armed formations on the territory of a foreign state (part 2 of article 208 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation).


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Bersh ◽  
Anna Khristyuk

Despite the positive attitude towards the presence of compromise norms in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing the possibility of exemption from criminal liability for a committed crime, their mere presence seems insufficient. It is important to introduce a mechanism for the functioning of the norms, which will describe in detail all the stages necessary for their application. The article discusses controversial issues of insufficient legislative regulation of exemption from criminal liability on the basis of the application of a note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The opinions of scientists concerning the application of special grounds for exemption from criminal liability for kidnapping are generalized, the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the understanding of the term “voluntary release of the kidnapped” is considered. A number of controversial issues that have not been taken into account by the legislator, which require mandatory regulation, are cited. The article examines the existing judicial practice of applying the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A lack of uniformity in the law enforcement activities of the judiciary was revealed. Supplements are proposed to the new resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 24, 2019 No. 58 to increase the effectiveness of the application of the considered grounds for exemption from criminal liability. As a result, a proposal was put forward that is aimed at improving the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The issues raised in the article are of scientific and practical interest.


Author(s):  
Andrey V. Arkhipov ◽  
◽  

The article examines the history of the emergence and development of Russian legislation on criminal liability for fraud. It is noted that for the first time fraud is mentioned in the legal acts of the second half of the 16th century - the Codes of Justice of Tsars Ivan IV and Fyodor Ioannovich. Initially, fraud was most often understood as a deft but petty theft, in which de-ception was used to facilitate its commission. The understanding of fraud as the theft of other people's property, committed by deception, began to be formed only in the second half of the 18th century with the publication on April 3, 1781 by Empress Catherine II of the Decree "On the court and punishments for theft of different kinds and the establishment of working houses in all the gubernias." In the 19th century, the clarifying process of the content of the term "fraud" continued. It was reflected in the first codified criminal laws of the Russian Empire - Code of crimi-nal and corrective penalties of Russia of 1845 and the Charter on Punishments imposed by the justices of the peace of 1864. A significant contribution to the development of the Russian criminal law on liability for fraud was made by a group of legal scholars involved in the de-velopment of the Criminal Code of the Russian Empire, in which the whole Chapter 33 (Arti-cles 591-598) contained the rules on liability for fraud. Although the 1903 Criminal Code was not fully enacted, it had a significant impact on the formation of criminal law on liability for fraud in subsequent regulations. During the Soviet period, the legislation on the responsibility for fraud continued to develop. For the first time, abuse of trust was mentioned as a method of crime, along with deception. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the adoption in 1993 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law 10 of 01.07.1994 made signifi-cant changes to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1960 that served as the basis for the system of crimes against property in modern Russia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (12-3) ◽  
pp. 230-234
Author(s):  
Natalia Martynenko ◽  
Anatoly Maydykov

The article analyzes the ideas of the Russian scientist in the field of criminal law Ivan Yakovlevich Foinitsky (1847-1913) on the establishment of criminal liability for kidnapping. The influence of I.Y. Foinitsky's ideas on the modern concept of criminal law protection of a person from abduction is shown. It is concluded that the norm on responsibility for the abduction of a person existing in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, its location in the structure of the norms of the Special Part, in many respects includes the provisions laid down by I.Y Foinitsky.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document