Encroachment on a Non-Existing Object or an Object Obviously Unsuitable for Implementation of Intent and the Consequences of such an Act under the Criminal Code of 1903

One of the innovations of the Criminal Code of 1903 was that it provided for the possibility to consider an object that did not exist or was unsuitable for achieving the desired criminal result as a circumstance entailing the non-criminality of the act. The paper explains theoretical and practical prerequisites for this innovation. The paper analyzes the practice of the Governing Senate (the Supreme Court of the Russian Empire) regarding encroachments on an imaginary or unusable object (object) of a crime during the period of validity of the Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments – the predecessor of the Criminal Code of 1903. The author argues that the studied judicial practice was inconsistent and it was not necessary for law enforcement officers of that time for clear and reasonable criteria on this issue. The author analyzed the ideas and intent of the drafters of the Criminal Code of 1903 regarding the circumstance in question, as well as the corresponding provision of the law. It is concluded that the ideas and judgments expressed during the development and evaluation of the relevant normative regulation may be in demand when improving the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which does not directly regulate liability for an attempt on an unusable object.

1. Belogrits-Kotlyarevskiy L. S. Uchebnik russkogo ugolovnogo prava. Obshchaya i osobennaya chasti. — Kiev [i dr.]: Yuzhno-Russkoe kn-vo F. A. Iogansona, 1903. — 618 s.

2. Gaykov V. T., Kosarev A. V. Ponyatie obstoyatelstv, isklyuchayushchikh prestupnost deyaniya, i ikh klassifikatsiya // Izvestiya vuzov Severo-Kavkazskogo regiona. Obshchestvennye nauki. — 2005. — № 3. — S. 77–79.

3. Epifanov B. V. Predmet prestupleniya: ponyatie i problemy pravotvorchestva // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. — 2015. — № 2 (66). — S. 70–74.

4. Kolokolov G. E. Novoe ugolovnoe ulozhenie: tolkovanie i kriticheskiy razbor. — M.: Tipo-lit. Yu. Vener, preemn. O. Falk, 1904. — 44 s.

5. Korzhanskiy N. I. Predmet prestupleniya. — Volgograd: Vyssh. sledstv. shkola, 1976. — 56 s.

6. Kravtsov S. F. Predmet prestupleniya: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — L., 1976. — 19 s.

7. Kurs ugolovnogo prava. Obshchaya chast. T. 1: Uchenie o prestuplenii / pod red. N. F. Kuznetsovoy i I. M. Tyazhkovoy. — M.: Zertsalo, 2002. — 624 s.

8. Lenin V. I. Gosudarstvo i revolyutsiya. — M.: AST, 2020. — 480 s.

9. Mikhaylov V. I. Institut pravomernogo vreda (obstoyatelstv, isklyuchayushchikh prestupnost deyaniya) v Ugolovnom ulozhenii 1903 g. // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2016. — № 5. — S. 65–72.

10. Pustoroslev P. P. Russkoe ugolovnoe pravo: Obshchaya chast. — Vyp. 1. — Yurev: Tip. K. Mattisena, 1907. — 546 s.

11. Slavin I. Vreditelstvo na fronte sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava. — M.: Sovetskoe zakonodatelstvo, 1931. — 111 s.

12. Sergeevskiy N. D. Russkoe ugolovnoe pravo: posobie k lektsiyam. Chast obshchaya. — 9-e izd. — SPb.: Tip. M. M. Stasyulevicha, 1911. — 397 s.

13. Solovev O. G. K voprosu o sootnoshenii abstraktnogo i kazuisticheskogo priemov v konstruirovanii norm ugolovnogo prava // Aktualnye problemy gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk. — 2016. — № 2–3. — S. 231–233.

14. Stuchka P. Proletarskaya revolyutsiya i sud // Proletarskaya revolyutsiya i pravo. — 1918. — № 1. — S. 1–8.