The article is devoted to the study of the trends in Russian criminal policy at the present stage of its development. The authors come to the conclusion that criminal policy today is understood and exists in three aspects: first, as a policy in its own (narrow) sense of the word, that is, state political activity in the field of combating crime; second, as law enforcement in this area (practical policy); third, as a branch of scientific knowledge of complex content (based on the connection of criminal law, process, criminal executive law, criminology with political science, sociology, management theory), the so-called criminal political science. Criminal policy, implemented at different stages of development of social relations, is characterized by certain priority areas. Currently, with regard to international documents and standards, one of the key trends in Russian criminal policy is humanization, as evidenced by the analysis of changes and additions to the criminal law over the past twenty years.
According to the results of a comprehensive study of the problem, it was found that domestic criminal legislation reflects the fact of committing a crime for the first time, traditionally in a legal, and not factual (committing a crime for the first time in life) understanding: such legislative practice always has a preferential criminal law value and is carried out in various ways: in relation to specific crimes or their separate elements, in relation to certain categories of crimes. When assessing the legislative practice of using the concept of a person who first committed a crime in the legal (criminal-legal) sense for the prospect of its improvement and further development, it is noted that the “cross-cutting” meaning of this concept for the entire Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996 was not defined in any norm of this Criminal Code. It has been suggested that for this reason the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not give an interpretation of this concept “for all occasions”: to date, no explanation has been given of the criminal-legal meaning of the concept of a person who first committed a crime in the cases provided for in Part 1 Article 531, part 1 of Article 56, paragraph “a”, Part 1 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It was revealed that such clarifications are expected by the law enforcement officer because the existing interpretations in relation to other norms are of a “thematic” nature and differ in their content. The advantages and disadvantages of the last form of reflecting this circumstance in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996 are named. Based on the analysis of the practice of applying criminal legislation, attention is drawn to the need for its improvement in this direction with specific proposals.
Having studied criminology textbooks and research publications regarding the personality of the criminal, its classification and typology, the author draws attention to the fact that they discuss the opposition between, on the one hand, repeat crimes and the personality of a repeat offender and, on the other hand, all other crimes and the personality of an offender «in general», rather than fist-time crimes and first-time offenders, which would be more logical. The author concludes that it is necessary not only to counteract repeat crimes but, primarily, to prevent them though a more effective reaction to first-time crime and its subject — a first-time offender. An overview of textbooks and research publications in criminology shows that the topic of first-time offenders, either as an independent object, or in comparison with repeat crimes, is never even outlined. As for special research which could discuss this problem, primarily, research devoted to the personality of the criminal, to repeat offenses, it does not contain any definite information regarding the differences between secondary (repeat) and first-time crimes, or the necessity and expediency of a selective reaction to the first-time offences. Publications devoted to repeat offences, the personality of the repeat offender, limit their object to analyzing the behavioral pattern of persons who already committed a crime in the past and then commit a new crime. Persons without a record of previous convictions who commit a crime, as a rule, stay out of the scope of such research and of criminology in general. The author puts forward an idea that the personality of a first-time offender is not studied in criminology because there seems to be no practical benefit from such work, unlike the benefits of studying the personality of a repeat offender. It is stated that, traditionally, the threat of new crimes from repeat offenders has caused greater concerns than the threat from first-time offenders. The author claims that the solution of the latter problem predetermines the solution of the former as it acts, at least, as one of the most efficient tools that could have an impact on it.
In Russian criminal lawthe fact of committing a crime for the first time determines the operation of the fundamental institutions: responsibility and punishment. The identification of the person having committed a crime for the first time is an extremely important task not only for the further proper focus for law enforcement officials on the individualization of punishment and criminal responsibility, but in general, for a more clear perception of the enforcement of the criminal legal relations caused by the criminal act. Despite the importance of this concept, if attention is given thereto in theoretical research, it is mainly from the point of view of clarifying the legal content. The questions of expediency of introducing the concept of a person who has committed a crime for the first time into the text of the criminal law, the criminal legal significance of this circumstance among others affecting the adoption of a criminal legal decision remain little explored to date. Any concept that is applied in practice and has real significance for the qualification of crimes, determining the grounds and limits of criminal liability, as well as for the imposition of punishment, undoubtedly requires criminal law consolidation. The absence of any concept of such significance in the law means that there is a gap in criminal law. Meanwhile, the concept of a person who has committed a crime is complicated by the fact that in real law enforcement it is filled with specific legal content, different from the everyday understanding of this phenomenon. This causes problems such as the association of such persons with "legally non-indictable persons". Full identification of these concepts does not allow the legislator to provide a sufficiently selective, individualized and adequate approach to different categories of such persons. In addition, questions are raised about the differentiation of responsibility of a person who committed a first-time careless crime with a person guilty of committing an intentional criminal act. The paper attempts to answer these questions by the example of specific criminal legal norms, taking into account the experience of their enforcement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.