The emergence of the category of offenses has had an impact on the classification of criminal violations and has started the discussions upon the necessity of such classification, concerning the differentiation of criminal liability. The question arises if the implementation of this new category (for our criminal law) has occurred only in the division of criminal violations on crimes and offenses or has influenced the other criminallegal categories.

This research aims to define the importance of the category of criminal offenses to such a phenomenon as the differentiation of criminal liability. For instance, it is necessary to find out if division on crimes and criminal offenses can be recognized as one of themeans of differentiation of criminal liability or as the type of differentiation of criminal liability.

While working upon this article, it has been figured out, that some differentiating provisions, which cannot be applied to crimes, however, concern criminal offenses. Especially it said about the possibility of imposing certain punishments for committing crime or offense, of criminal liability for preparation, as well as some aspects of statute limitation and criminal record. At the same time, some cross-cutting differentiating provisions still can be implemented to both categories of criminal violations.

In this article, we try to draw attention to fact that the classification of criminal violations is not one of the means of differentiation of criminal liability. It is not an instrument (due to certain criteria) of the legislator, which can be used for the provision of the variability of criminal liability. Obviously, the classification of criminal violations is of great importance for constructing criminal code, as it supports its system, brevity, structure, and logic of code provisions. This classification of criminal violations is the base for future differentiation of criminal liability.

Taking into account the influence of the category of offenses on some cross-cutting provisions of criminal law, considering the feature of the severity of criminal violation we can conclude that it is reasonable to identify the new types of differentiation of criminal liability: 1) differentiation of criminal liability for committing the offense; 2) differentiation of criminal liability for committing a crime.

We suppose that this category of criminal violations, as well as the phenomenon of classification criminal violations in its essence is not prescribed for scaling criminal liability. That’s why it is not one of the means of differentiation of criminal liability.

We also want to draw attention to the somewhat “mechanical” approach of the legislator to the division of criminal violations on crimes and offenses. The existing division is based on an actual change of sanction to attribute certain actions to the category of crime or offense. And such a process of artificially constructed sanctions has some flaws. Division on crimes and offenses must serve a certain aim of material law, not procedural. That’s why in the future it is necessary to formulate the material grounds to reason such a division. Domination of procedural grounds over material is unacceptable.

All criminal violations must be prescribed in the same law. Existence of two separate codes on offenses and crimes, besides Code of Ukraine on administrative violations is unreasonable.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Boiko I, Istoriia pravovoho rehuliuvannia tsyvilnykh, kryminalnykh ta protsesualnykh vidnosyn v Ukraini (IX–XX st.) (VTs LNU im I Franka 2014) (in Ukrainian).

2. Kruglikov L і Vasil’evskij A, Differenciacija otvetstvennosti v ugolovnom prave (Juridicheskij centr Press 2002) (in Russian).

3. Terliuk I, Ohliad istorii kryminalnoho prava Ukrainy: navchalnyi posibnyk (Liha-Pres 2007) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

4. Antoniuk N, ‘Zasoby dyferentsiatsii kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti’ (2020) 2 Pravo Ukrainy 233 (in Ukrainian).

5. Borysov V ta Tiutiuhin V ta Demydova L, ‘Kryminalnyi prostupok: kontseptualni zasady zaprovadzhennia do natsionalnoho zakonodavstva’ (2016) 2 Visnyk Asotsiatsii kryminalnoho prava Ukrainy 129 (in Ukrainian).

 6. Fris P, ‘Pytannia kryminalnoho prava v konteksti kryminalno-pravovoi polityky’ (2010) 9 Pravo Ukrainy 73 (in Ukrainian).

7. Myroshnychenko N, ‘Kontseptualni pytannia zaprovadzhennia instytutu “kryminalni prostupky” u zakonodavstvo Ukrainy’ (2015) 20 Pravova derzhava 154 (in Ukrainian).

8. Orlovska N, ‘Problemy klasyfikatsii kryminalnykh pravoporushen (do pytannia pro zaprovadzhennia kryminalnykh prostupkiv)’ (2018) 2 Porivnialno-analitychne pravo 306 (in Ukrainian).

9. Pavlyk L, ‘Poniattia ta vydy zasobiv dyferentsiatsii kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti’ (2013) 1 Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav. seriia yurydychna 322 (in Ukrainian).

10. Politova A, ‘Kryminalnyi prostupok yak novela reformuvannia kryminalnoi yustytsii’ (2013) 4 Visnyk kryminolohichnoi asotsiatsii Ukrainy 74 (in Ukrainian).

11. Sharmar O, ‘Kryminalni prostupky: istoriia i suchasnist’ (2013) 2 Naukovyi visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii vnutrishnikh sprav 362 (in Ukrainian).

12. Shevchuk T, ‘Do pytannia pro naukove zabezpechennia zaprovadzhennia instytutu kryminalnoho prostupku v ukrainske zakonodavstvo’ (2019) 1 Porivnialno-analitychne pravo 323 (in Ukrainian).

13. Shuba B, ‘Naukovo-teoretychnyi analiz vytokiv formuvannia instytutu kryminalnoho prostupku’ (2015) 6 Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii 98 (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

14. Hrebeniuk O, ‘Shchodo perspektyv zaprovadzhennia instytutu kryminalnykh prostupkiv u konteksti novoho Kryminalnoho protsesualnoho kodeksu’ in Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: tezy dopovidei ta povidomlen uchasnykiv Mizhnarodnoho sympoziumu, 21–22 veresnia (Lviv 2012) 61 (in Ukrainian).

15. Khavroniuk M, ‘Kontseptsiiu vyznacheno: administratyvni prostupky, kryminalni prostupky, zlochyny. Nastav chas rozmezhuvaty’ in Osnovni napriamy rozvytku kryminalnoho prava ta shliakhy vdoskonalennia zakonodavstva Ukrainy pro kryminalnu vidpovidalnist. Materialy mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii 11–12 zhovtnia 2012 roku (Kharkiv) 182 (in Ukrainian).

16. Marin O, ‘Kryminalno-pravovi problemy novoho KPK Ukrainy’ in Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 r.: problemy zastosuvannia i perspektyvy udoskonalennia: tezy dopovidei ta povidomlen uchasnykiv Mizhnarodnoho sympoziumu, 21–22 veresnia (Lviv 2012) 140 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

17. Chuprova O, ‘Differenciacija otvetstvennosti v ugolovnom prave stran kontinental’noj Evropy i Rossii: komparativistskij aspekt’ (avtoref dys kand jurid nauk, 2008) (in Russian).

Websites

18. Schennach M фтв Schumacher V ‘The Practice of Criminal Law by the Supreme Court in the Austrian Vormärz. A Workshop Report’ <https://forhistiur.de/media/ nachrichten/Bericht.pdf> (accessed: 06.08.2020) (in German).

19. Khavroniuk M, ‘Skresla kryha shchodo zakonoproektiv 7279 i 7279-1 (shchodo kryminalnykh prostupkiv)’ (Barristers.org.ua, 13.03.2018) <https://barristers. org.ua/news/sogodni-kryga-skresla-shhodo-zakonoproektiv-7279-7279-1-shhodokryminalnyhprostupkiv> (accessed: 02.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).

20. Navrotskyi V, ‘Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy 2001 roku: pidsumky ta perspektyvy’ (Yurysprudentsiya onlain , 2006) <https://www.lawyer.org.ua/?i=13> (in Ukrainian).

21. Veremko V, ‘Mezhi kryminalu’ (Zakon i Biznes, 30.09. – 06.10.2017) <https://zib.com. ua/ua/print/130299-do_zlochiniv_proponuyut_vidnesti_tilki_ti_diyannya_yaki_vart. html> (accessed: 02.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).