.png)
| Article title | The Concept of Criminal Liability Differentiation | ||
| Authors |
Candidate of Law, Associate Professor (Kyiv, Ukraine) ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7582-2071 antoniuk_natalia@supreme.court.gov.ua
|
||
| Name of magazine | Legal journal «Law of Ukraine» (Ukrainian version) | ||
| Issue | 9/2019 | ||
| Сторінки | [196-214] | ||
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.33498/louu-2019-09-196 | ||
| Annotation | Differentiation of criminal liability is closely linked to justice as the principle of criminal law and criminal law policy. In this context, differentiation of criminal liability is a crucial element in the system of balance between judicial discretion and legislative restrictions thereof. An adequate understanding of this phenomenon is a prerequisite for setting down of a system of criteria, means and legal techniques of differentiation intended for future substantiation of the balanced structure for implementation of criminal liability on the basis of justice. In the science of criminal law, the issue of the concept and signs of differentiation of criminal liability is insufficiently elaborated. The purpose of the article is to define the concept of differentiation of criminal liability. To this end, scientific approaches to this issue should be analyzed and signs characterizing criminal liability differentiation should be identified, as well as signs which are not inherent therein or refer to other related legal institutes. To ensure a differentiated approach to issues of criminal liability, the legislator should take into account the nature and the extent of public danger of an offense and/or public danger of an individual who commits respective acts. Differentiation of criminal liability has two groups of elements as its source material. These are the elements relating to an offence proper and the elements relating to the potential consequences of an offence when it is committed. By combining these elements with each other, liability can be graduated to the maximum extent. Signs of differentiation of criminal liability are as follows: 1) it is an integral part of the principle of justice; 2) it is implemented by an authored actor – legislator; 3) the subject which is differentiated is criminal liability, i.e. the possibility of restrictive influence on a person; 4) it is implemented either in the form of assessment of a group of homogeneous or heterogeneous criminal offences, or in the form of assessment of a person’s features allowing to single out certain typified signs of corpus delicti and typified forms of criminal liability implementation; 5) these measures of influence should be consistent with the nature and extent of public danger of an offence and/or an individual who committed it, on the basis of justice. Differentiation of criminal liability is a variable assessment of groups of homogeneous or heterogeneous criminal offences and/or persons who commit them which is made by the legislator with a view to implementing the principle of justice and which leads to the enshrinement in the Criminal Code of Ukraine of typical signs of crimes and/or various typical forms of potential restrictive influence on a person consistent with the nature and extent of public danger of a crime and/or public danger of a person who committed such a crime.
|
||
| Keywords | differentiation of criminal liability; justice; nature and extent of public danger | ||
| References |
Bibliography
Authored books 1. Kozlov A i Sevast’janov A, Edinichnye i mnozhestvennye prestuplenija [Single and Multiple Crimes] (Juridicheskij centr-Press 2011) (in Russian). 2. Kruglikov L i Vasil’evskij A, Differenciacija otvetstvennosti v ugolovnom prave [Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility in Criminal Law] (Juridicheskij centr-Press 2002) (in Russian). 3. Lesnievski-Kostareva T, Differenciacija ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti. Teorija i zakonodatel’naja praktika [Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility. Theory and Legislation Practice] (Norma 1998) (in Russian). 4. Mel’nikova Ju, Differenciacija otvetstvennosti i individualizacija nakazanija [Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility and Individualization of Punishment] (Izdatel’stvo Krasnojarskogo universiteta 1989) (in Russian).
Edited books 5. Korobov P, ‘Ponjatie differenciacii ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti’ [‘The Concept of Criminal Liability Differentiation’] v Kruglikov L (otv red), Differenciacija formy i soderzhanija v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Differentiation of Form and Content in Criminal Proceedings] (1995) (in Russian). 6. Kriger G, ‘Differenciacija osnovanij i predelov ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti’ [‘Differentiation of the Grounds and Limits of Criminal Liability’] v Kudrjavcev V (otv red), Usovershenstvovanie mer bor’by s prestupnost’ju v uslovijah nauchnotehnicheskoj revoljucii [Improving the Measures to Combat Crime in the Age of Scientific and Technological Revolution] (Nauka 1980) (in Russian).
Journal articles 7. Andreev A i Lobanova L, ‘Ponjatie differenciacii ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti’ [‘Definition of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility’] (2006) 1 Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Serija 5, Jurisprudencija 118-26 (in Russian). 8. Gal’perin I, ‘Differenciacija ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti i effektivnost’ nakazanija’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility and Effectiveness of Punishment’] (1983) 3 Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo 69-76 (in Russian). 9. Kaplin Mihail, ‘Uchenie o differenciacii ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti i dejstvujushhij zakon’ [‘Study of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility and Operating Law’] (2014) 2 Juridicheskaja nauka 111-5 (in Russian). 10. Kelina S, ‘Nekotorye napravlenija sovershenstvovanija ugolovnogo zakonodatel’stva’ [‘Some Ways of Upgrading Criminal Legislation’] (1987) 5 Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo 70 (in Russian). 11. Kudashev S, ‘Differenciacija ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti i nakazanija’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility and Punishment’] (2006) 5 Ugolovnoe pravo 60-4 (in Russian). 12. Ojgenziht V, ‘O differenciacii juridicheskoj otvetstvennosti’ [‘About the Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility’] (1981) 2 Teorija i praktika bor’by s pravonarushenijami 43-53 (in Russian). 13. Pavlyk L, ‘Dyferentsiatsiia kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti, pokarannia ta vykonannia pokarannia: osoblyvosti rozmezhuvannia poniat’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility, Punishment and its Execution: Peculiarities of Terms Delimitation’] (2015) 2 Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav 256-65 (in Ukrainian). 14. Smirnov A, ‘K voprosu o kriterijah obshhestvennoj opasnosti’ [‘About Criteria of Social Dangerousness’] (2010) 10 Dnevnik nauki, <http://dnevniknauki.ru/images/publications/2018/10/law/Smirnov.pdf> (accessed: 22.08.2019) (in Russian). 15. Ter-Akopov A, ‘Osnovanija differenciacii otvetstvennosti za dejanija, predusmotrennye ugolovnym zakonom’ [‘Basis of Differentiation of Responsibility for Actions Prescribed by Criminal Law’] (1991) 10 Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo 71-8 (in Russian).
Conference papers 16. Ahuzarov T, ‘Urovny dyfferentsyatsyy otvetstvennosty za prestuplenyia protyv poriadka upravlenyia po ulozhenyiu o nakazanyiakh uholovnykh y yspravytelnykh’ [‘Levels of Differentiation of Responsibility for Crimes Encroaching Order of Management According to Statute about Criminal and Rehabilitative Punishments’] v Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: Mizhnarodnyi sympozium 11-12 veresnia 2009 roku [Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2001: Problems of Application and Prospects for Improvement: International Symposium September 11-12, 2009] (LvDUVS 2009) 7-9 (in Russian). 17. Baulin Yu, ‘Kryminalna vidpovidalnist, yaka pidliahaie dyferentsiatsii’ [‘Criminal Responsibility which is Subject to Differentiation’] v Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: Mizhnarodnyi sympozium 11-12 veresnia 2009 roku [Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2001: Problems of Application and Prospects for Improvement: International Symposium September 11-12, 2009] (LvDUVS 2009) 16-9 (in Ukrainian). 18. Kvasha O, ‘Dyferentsiatsiia kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti uchasnykiv orhanizovanykh hrup i zlochynnykh orhanizatsii’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility of Members of Organized Criminal Groups and Organizations’] v Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: Mizhnarodnyi sympozium 11-12 veresnia 2009 roku [Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2001: Problems of Application and Prospects for Improvement: International Symposium September 11-12, 2009] (LvDUVS 2009) 66-8 (in Ukrainian). 19. Navrotskyi V, ‘Dyferentsiatsiia kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti: zabahanka zakonodavtsia chy neobkhidnist’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility: Legislators wish or Necessity’] v Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: Mizhnarodnyi sympozium 11-12 veresnia 2009 roku [Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2001: Problems of Application and Prospects for Improvement: International Symposium September 11-12, 2009] (LvDUVS 2009) 100-3 (in Ukrainian). 20. Ortynskyi V ta Marin O, ‘Dyferentsiatsiia ta unifikatsiia – dva osnovni vektory rozvytku kryminalnoho zakonodavstva’ [‘Differentiation and Individualization – the Two Main Ways of Development of Criminal Legislation’] v Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: Mizhnarodnyi sympozium 11-12 veresnia 2009 roku [Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2001: Problems of Application and Prospects for Improvement: International Symposium September 11-12, 2009] (LvDUVS 2009) 3-4 (in Ukrainian). 21. Ponomarenko Yu, ‘Znachennia systemy pokaran dlia dyferentsiatsii kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti v sanktsiiakh statei Osoblyvoi chastyny KK Ukrainy’ [‘Importance of System of Punishments for Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility in Sanctions of Articles of Special Part of Criminal Code of Ukraine’] v Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: Mizhnarodnyi sympozium 11-12 veresnia 2009 roku [Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2001: Problems of Application and Prospects for Improvement: International Symposium September 11-12, 2009] (LvDUVS 2009) 114-5 (in Ukrainian). 22. Raroh A, ‘Nedostatky dyfferentsyatsyy otvetstvennosty v rossyiskom uholovnom prave’ [‘Shortcomings of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility in Russian Criminal Law’] v Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: Mizhnarodnyi sympozium 11-12 veresnia 2009 roku [Criminal Code of Ukraine, 2001: Problems of Application and Prospects for Improvement: International Symposium September 11-12, 2009] (LvDUVS 2009) 120-2 (in Russian).
Theses 23. Chuprova O, ‘Differenciacija otvetstvennosti v ugolovnom prave stran kontinental’noj Evropy i Rossii: Komparativistskij aspekt’ [‘Differentiation of Responsibility in Criminal Law of Continental Europe and Russia: Comparative Aspect’] (avtoref dis kand jurid nauk, 2008) (in Russian). 24. Korobov P, ‘Differenciacija ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti i klassifikacija ugolovno nakazuemyh dejanij’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility and Classification of Punishable Actions’] (avtoref dis kand jurid nauk, 1983) (in Russian). 25. Verina G, ‘Differenciacija ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti za prestuplenija protiv sobstvennosti: Problemy teorii i praktiki’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility for Crimes Versus Property: Problems of Theory and Practice’] (avtoref dis doktora jurid nauk, 2003) (in Russian).
|
||
|
|||
