Determination of the Interests of the Subjects of Relations and Specification of the Object of the Crime
https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2018.97.12.131-141
Abstract
The paper deals with the significance of the interests of the subjects of relations in establishing the object of the crime. The concept of “an object of the crime — public relations” is universal, but it has a drawback: as a phenomenon, social relations are intangible, and as a concept they are abstract. This creates difficulties for the law enforcement officer. According to the author, one of the ways to concretize the object of the crime is to consider it in light of the interests of the subjects as an opportunity to act or remain in a certain state. The Criminal Law irrespective of specific, private cases, provides for the protection of potential possibilities of citizens, the implementation of which contributes to the development of the society. It makes no sense to oppose public relations and interests, since relations arise and develop for the realization of the subject’s interests. An interest in determining social harm to public relations acquires specific importance that is expressed in the activities of their subjects, such as relations in the field of economic activity. The negative consequences of the impact on relations in question do not appear immediately, but after a certain time, which makes it difficult to establish awareness of social danger. According to the author, in order to concretize the subject of anticipation, the law enforcer should establish the awareness of the subject of not the public danger, but of the social significance of his actions and the anticipation of the occurrence of not socially dangerous consequences, but the possibility of doing harm to the interests of the individual, society and the state.
About the Author
V. N. Vinokurov
Siberian Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia
Russian Federation
VINOKUROV Viktor Nikolaevich, PhD in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology
660131, Russia, Krasnoyarsk, ul. Rokossovskogo, d. 20
Russian Federation
VINOKUROV Viktor Nikolaevich, PhD in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology
660131, Russia, Krasnoyarsk, ul. Rokossovskogo, d. 20
References
1. Bimbinov A. A. Nenasil’stvennye polovye prestupleniya. — M., 2017. — 160 s.
2. Braynin Ya. M. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost’ ee osnovanie v sovetskom ugolovnom prave. — M., 1963. — 275 s.
3. Veklenko S. V. Ponyatie, sushchnost’, soderzhanie i formy viny v ugolovnom prave. — Omsk, 2002. — 192 s.
4. Glistin V. K. Problemy ugolovno-pravovoy okhrany obshchestvennykh otnosheniy (ob”ekt i kvalifikatsiya prestupleniya). — L., 1979. — 127 s.
5. Gribanov V. P. Osushchestvlenie i zashchita grazhdanskikh prav. — M., 2000. — 411 s.
6. Demidov Yu. A. Sotsial’naya tsennost’ i otsenka v ugolovnom prave. — M., 1975. — 182 s.
7. Eliseev S. «Khishchenie pokhishchennogo»: problemy kvalifikatsii // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2008. — № 1. — S. 45—49.
8. Eliseev S. A. Prestupleniya protiv sobstvennosti po ugolovnomu zakonodatel’stvu Rossii (voprosy teorii). — Tomsk, 1999. — 176 s.
9. Eliseev S. A. Spornye polozheniya postanovleniya Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF № 12 ot 9 iyulya 2013 g. «O sudebnoy praktike po delam o vzyatochnichestve i ob inykh korruptsionnykh prestupleniyakh» // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo. — 2014. — № 4. — S. 60—65.
10. Zagorodnikov N. I. Ob”ekt prestupleniya: ot ideologizatsii soderzhaniya k estestvennomu ponyatiyu // Problemy ugolovno-pravovoy politiki i ugolovnogo prava: Mezhvuz : sbornik nauchnykh trudov. — M., 1994. — S. 5—22.
11. Zamoskovtsev P. V. Nekotorye voprosy sistemy Osobennoy chasti Sovetskogo ugolovnogo zakonodatel’stva // Sibirskie yuridicheskie zapiski. — Omsk — Irkutsk, 1971. — S. 3—12.
12. Zdravomyslov A. G. Problema interesa v sotsiologicheskoy kontseptsii. — L., 1964. — 74 s.
13. Zelinskiy A. F. Kriminologicheskie i ugolovno-pravovye aspekty neosoznavaemoy psikhicheskoy deyatel’nosti // Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. — 1984. — № 9. — S. 52—58.
14. Kairzhanov E. K. Interesy trudyashchikhsya i ugolovniy zakon. Problemy ob”ekta prestupleniya. — Alma-Ata, 1973. — 160 s.
15. Klepitskiy I. A. Sobstvennost’ i imushchestvo v ugolovnom prave // Gosudarstvo i pravo. — 1997. — № 5. — S. 74—83.
16. Korzhanskiy N. I. Ob”ekt i predmet ugolovno-pravovoy okhrany. — M., 1980. —248 s.
17. Kuznetsov A. V. Ugolovno-pravovaya okhrana interesov lichnosti v SSSR. — M., 1969. — 160 s.
18. Kulygin V. V. Vinovnaya otvetstvennost’ i sub”ektivnoe vmenenie v ugolovnom prave. — Khabarovsk, 1996. — 60 s.
19. Lyapunov Yu. I. Ugolovno-pravovaya okhrana prirody organami vnutrennikh del. — M., 1974. — 151 s.
20. Mal’ko A. V, Subochev V. V. Zakonnye interesy kak pravovaya kategoriya. — SPb., 2004. — 359 s.
21. Marks K., Engel’s F. Sochineniya. — M., 1961. — T. 18. — 807 s.
22. Matuzov N. A. Lichnost’. Prava. Demokratiya (teoreticheskie aspekty sub”ektivnogo prava). — Saratov, 1972. — 292 s.
23. Matuzov N. I. Pravovaya sistema i lichnost’. — Saratov, 1987. — 293 s.
24. Mikhlin A. S. Posledstviya prestupleniya. — M., 1969. — 104 s.
25. Motin O. A. Chastniy interes v sisteme ob”ektov ugolovno-pravovoy okhrany : avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Volgograd, 2005. — 31 s.
26. Nikiforov B. S. Ob”ekt prestupleniya po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu. — M., 1960. — 229 s.
27. Sklyarov S. V. Vina i motivy prestupnogo povedeniya. — SPb., 2004. — 326 s.
28. Sklyarov S. V. Ponyatie khishcheniya v ugolovnom zakonodatel’stve Rossii: teoreticheskiy analiz // Gosudarstvo i pravo. — 1997. — № 9. — S. 64—68.
29. Sovremennye tendentsii razvitiya ugolovnogo zakonodatel’stva i ugolovno-pravovoy teorii // Gosudarstvo i pravo. — 1994. — № 6. — S. 55—68.
30. Tagantsev N. S. Russkoe ugolovnoe pravo. Lektsii. Chast’ Obshchaya : v 2 t. — M., 1994. — T. 1. — 380 s.
31. Tatsiy V. Ya. Ob”ekt i predmet prestupleniya v sovetskom ugolovnom prave. — Khar’kov, 1988. — 197 s.
32. Frolov E. A. Ob”ekt ugolovnopravovoy okhrany i ego rol’ v organizatsii bor’by s posyagatel’stvami na sotsialisticheskuyu sobstvennost’ : avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Sverdlovsk, 1971. — 38 s.
33. Frolov E. A. Spornye voprosy obshchego ucheniya ob ob”ekte prestupleniya // Sbornik uchenykh trudov. — Vyp. 10. — Sverdlovsk, 1969. — S. 184—224.
34. Khilyuta V. V. Predmet prestupleniya v nauke ugolovnogo prava: problemy i protivorechiya // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2016. — № 17. — S. 70—79.
35. Sheptulin A. P. Sistema kategoriy dialektiki. — M., 1967. — 375 s.
36. Shishko I. V. Ekonomicheskie prestupleniya: voprosy yuridicheskoy otsenki i otvetstvennosti. — SPb., 2004. — 307 s.
37. Yani P. S. O znachenii printsipa ignorantia juris nocet dlya vmeneniya sostavov ekonomicheskikh prestupleniy // Ugolovnoe pravo v XXI veke : materialy Mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii na yuridicheskom fakul’tete MGU 31 maya 2001 g. — M. : LeksEst, 2002. — S. 234—238.
Review
For citations:
Vinokurov V.N. Determination of the Interests of the Subjects of Relations and Specification of the Object of the Crime. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2018;(12):131-141. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2018.97.12.131-141
Views:
763
Email this article 