Article title The Means of Criminal Liability Differentiation
Authors

Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, Judge of the Great Chamber of the Supreme Court Assistant Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology Department  of Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine  (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 2/2020
Сторінки [228-243]
DOI https://doi.org/10.33498/louu-2020-02-228
Annotation

Criminal liability differentiation with a view to ensuring the principle of justice is undeniably important. Even merely by establishing the reasonableness of such differentiation and based on its specific criteria, the fair approach to the application of criminal law rules can be ensured. At the same time, it should be noted that criminal liability is differentiated via certain methods and techniques which are the means of criminal liability differentiation.

It is crucial to correctly single out the means of criminal liability differentiation given that they determine the vector of the legislator’s influence on the criminal law rule. The differentiation means are those methods and techniques which determine the tools for ensuring the variability of the criminal law impact on criminal liability generally at the level of criminal law.

A clear understanding of what the means of criminal liability differentiation should be allows examining the current Criminal Code of Ukraine from the perspective of its completeness and consistency of use of the mechanisms ensuring unequal influence by criminal law means on perpetrators of crimes, within the framework of the principle of justice. Thus, weak points of criminal law may be identified in terms of criminal liability differentiation, and respective proposals may be made to address these shortcomings.

The purpose of the article is to develop the concept of the means of criminal liability differentiation and outline their range, since only such a comprehensive approach makes it possible to determine the very mechanism of differentiation and to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of its application in reality.

The article analyzes scientific approaches used to understand the means of criminal liability and gives a well-grounded list of such means which are singled out in the doctrine of criminal law.

The author formulates own understanding of the means of criminal liability differentiation and suggests that they be understood as the methods of legislative technique via which the legislator reflects in criminal law provisions the typical indicia of corpus delicti and (or) various typical forms of potential restrictive influence on a person which would correspond to the nature and the degree of public danger of the offense and (or) public danger of its perpetrator.

The means of criminal liability differentiation are: 1) how many crimes are committed; 2) how many persons were involved in committing the crime; 3) the stage at which the criminal intent was completed or ceased (terminated); 4) the possibility of release from criminal liability, from punishment or from serving the sentence; 5) providing for several types of punishments and their boundaries, providing for the time-limits during which a conviction may be expunged and removed from criminal record; 6) construction of competing provisions and provisions containing several related corpus delicti; 7) taking into account the perpetrator’s age.

The author emphasizes the need to distinguish the means of criminal liability differentiation as a conscious activity of the legislator aimed at ensuring the principle of justice of criminal law and the criminal law policy from manifestations of criminal liability differentiation.

 

Keywords means; differentiation; criminal liability; criminal law rule; principle of justice
References

Bibliography

 

 

 

Authored books

1. Kruglikov L i Vasil’evskij A, Differenciacija otvetstvennosti v ugolovnom prave [Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility in Criminal Law] (Juridicheskij centr-Press 2002) (in Russian).

2. Lesnievski-Kostareva T, Differenciacija ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti. Teorija i zakonodatel’naja praktika [Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility. Theory and Legislation Practice] (Norma 1998) (in Russian).

Journal articles

3. Kaplyn M, ‘Sushchnost dyfferentsyatsyy uholovnoj otvetstvennosty’ [‘Substance of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility’] (2001) 5 Yurydycheskye zapysky Yaroslavskoho hosudarstvennoho unyversyteta ym. P. H. Demydova 172–82 (in Russian). 4. Khoroshylov S, ‘O sredstvakh dyfferentsyatsyy uholovnoi otvetstvennosty za nalohovye prestuplenyia’ [‘About the Means of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility for Tax Crimes’] (2007) 4 Yuryst–Pravoved 103–6 (in Russian).

5. Kaplin M, ‘Uchenie o differenciacii ugolovnoj otvetstvennosty i dejstvujushhij zakon’ [‘Study of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility and Operating Law’] (2014) 2 Juridicheskaja nauka 111–5 (in Russian).

6. Pavlyk L, ‘Poniattia ta vydy zasobiv dyferentsiatsii kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti’ [‘Concept and Types of Means of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility’] (2013)1 Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav. Seriia yurydychna 313–25 (in Ukrainian).

7. Pavlyk L, ‘Zasoby dyferentsiatsii kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti, peredbacheni v Osoblyvii chastyni KK Ukrainy’ [‘Means of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility Provided for by a Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine’] (2012) 2 Chasopys Akademii advokatury Ukrainy 1–11 (in Ukrainian).

8. Serdiuk P, ‘Dyferentsiatsiia kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti: problema vyboru kontseptu’ [Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility: the Problem of Choosing a Concept’] (2013) 1 Filosofiia prava 882–92 (in Ukrainian).

9. Solovev O, ‘Poniatye, vyd i klassyfykatsyia sredstv dyfferentsyatsyy uholovnoi otvetstvennosty v Uholovnom kodekse Rossyiskoi Federatsyy’ [‘The Concept, Type and Classification of Means of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation’] (2012) 4 Yurydycheskaia nauka 56–8 (in Russian).

 

Dissertations

10. Kniazkov A, ‘Osvobozhdenye ot uholovnoi otvetstvennosty po delam ob еkonomycheskykh prestuplenyiakh (hl. 22 UK RF): voprosу dyfferentsyatsyy y zakonodatelnoi tekhnyky’ [‘Release from Criminal Responsibility for Economic Crimes (Chapt. 22 CC RF): the Issue of Differentiation in Legislative Technics’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2000) (in Russian).

11. Remyzov M, ‘Dyfferentsyatsyia uholovnoi otvetstvennosty za prestuplenyia protyv ynteresov publychnoi sluzhby (hl. 30 UK RF)’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility for Crimes Against the Interests of the Public Service (Chapt. 30 CC RF)’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2004) (in Russian).

12. Rohova E, ‘Uchenye o dyfferentsyatsyy uholovnoi otvetstvennosty’ [‘The Doctrine of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2014) (in Russian). 13. Vasylevskyi A, ‘Dyfferentsyatsyia uholovnoi otvetstvennosty i nakazanyia v Obshchei chasty uholovnoho prava’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility and Punishment in the General Part of Criminal Law’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2000) (in Russian).

 

Conference papers

14. Andrushko P, ‘Poniattia ta vydy dyferentsiatsii kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti’ [‘The Concept and Types of Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility] 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 Perspectives of Improvement. International Symposium 11–12 of September 2009] 11–16 (in Ukrainian).

15. Khavroniuk M, ‘Dyferentsiatsiia kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti abo chy ne ochikuie Ukrainu sotsialna katastrofa?’ [‘Differentiation of Criminal Responsibility or Ukraine is Facing a Social Disaster, Isn’t It?] 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 Perspectives of Improvement. International Symposium 11–12 of September 2009] 147–151 (in Ukrainian).

16. 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 Perspectives of Improvement. International Symposium 11–12 of September 2009] 100–103 (in Ukrainian).

 

Thesis

17. 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, Volgograd, 2008) (in Russian).

18. Hrybov A, ‘Dyfferentsyatsyia otvetstvennosty za ekonomycheskye prestuplenyia v Rossyy, FRH y SShA (sravnytelno-pravovoe yssledovanye)’ [‘Differentiation of Responsibility of Economic Crimes in Russia, Germany and USA (Comparative and Legal Research)’] (avtoref dis kand jurid nauk, 2011) (in Russian).

 

Websites

19. Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy [Dictionary of Ukrainian] (Naukova dumka 1970) <http://sum.in.ua/s/zasib> (accessed: 17.12.2019) (in Ukrainian).