The concept and meaning of the object of the crime. Types of objects of crime

Criminal law is the most significant legal area of great social importance.
In close conjunction with other branches of law, such as criminal procedure, correctional labor, and criminal law, it performs a significant function that allows one to classify acts as crimes and determine the procedure for applying responsibility for committing criminal acts. The essence of the criminal law reflects the object of the crime, which is an element of any illegal act. Multi-channel free hotline Legal advice on criminal law. Every day from 9.00 to 21.00

Moscow and region: +7 (495) 662-44-36

St. Petersburg: +7 (812) 449-43-40

The concept of the object of a crime

The object of a crime is those social relations at which the attack is directed, to which harm is caused or may be caused as a result of the commission of a crime.
The object of the crime is the most important social values, interests, benefits protected by criminal law from criminal attacks. The General Part of the Criminal Law (Article 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) provides a generalized list of objects of criminal legal protection. These include:

human and civil rights and freedoms;
own;
public order and public safety;
environment;
constitutional system of the Russian Federation;
peace and security of mankind.

This generalized list is specified in the Special Part of the Criminal Law, primarily in the names of sections and chapters of the Criminal Code, since the Special Part of the Criminal Code is built on the basis of the generic object of the crime. It indicates the specific rights and freedoms of a person and citizen protected by criminal law (life, health, freedom, honor and dignity of the individual, sexual integrity and sexual freedom, constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, etc.), as well as the most important public and state interests that are harmed or significant harm may be caused as a result of criminal attacks (property, economic interests of society and the state, public health and public morality, state power and the interests of public service, interests of justice, management procedures, military service procedures, etc.).

The concept of the object of a crime is closely related to the essence and concept of a criminal act, its characteristics and, above all, the main material (social) characteristic of a crime - public danger. Only something that causes or can cause significant harm to any socially significant benefit or interest can be considered criminal, i.e. something that, from the point of view of society, is socially dangerous. If the act does not entail specific damage or does not pose a real threat of harm to any interest protected by criminal law, or this harm is clearly insignificant, such an act cannot be recognized as a crime. Thus, there is no crime without an object of attack.

Without the object of a crime, there is no corpus delicti. The four-member structure of the crime (object, subject, objective side, subjective side) requires, when qualifying an act, the primary establishment of the object of the attack - that to which significant harm has been caused or may be caused by this act. In the absence of a specific addressee of the attack in the form of a certain socially significant value protected by criminal law, we cannot talk about the composition of any crime.

The concept of the object of a crime is most closely connected with the most important feature of the objective side of a crime - socially dangerous consequences. Socially dangerous consequences are certain harm, damage caused or could be caused to any socially significant benefit or interest. Socially dangerous consequences, as it were, highlight and materialize (in the philosophical sense of the word) the essence and specificity of a specific object of encroachment.

Thus, the object of a crime is social relations protected by criminal law, socially significant values, interests, benefits, which are encroached upon by the person committing the crime, and to which, as a result of the commission of a criminal act, significant harm is caused or may be caused.

The meaning of the object of the crime in its main features boils down to the following:

The object of the crime is an element of each criminal act, i.e. any crime is such only when something (any socially significant value, interest, benefit, protected by criminal law) is caused or can be caused significant harm. This finds expression in such a legislatively enshrined sign of a crime as public danger.
The object of the crime is a mandatory element of the crime. There cannot be a single specific crime (murder, theft, high treason, etc.) without the direct object of the attack.
The object of the crime is of fundamental importance for the codification of criminal legislation. Based on the generic object of the crime, the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is built. Of course, this is the most logical and practically significant criterion for the classification and systematization of criminal law norms, the categorization of sections and chapters of the Criminal Code.
Correct identification of the object of the crime makes it possible to distinguish the crime from other offenses and immoral offenses. In addition, if the real or possible harm to any good is clearly insignificant, even protected by criminal law, we cannot talk about a crime (Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code - a minor act), since the object does not suffer the damage that is expected from crimes.
The object of the crime makes it possible to determine the nature and degree of social danger of the criminal act, i.e. exactly what socially significant benefit is protected by criminal law, and to what extent (how seriously) the harm has been caused or could have been caused.
The object of the crime is important, and sometimes decisive, for the correct qualification of the act and the delimitation of one crime from another.

§ 2. delimitation of crimes

A necessary condition for the correct classification of a crime is a good knowledge of criminal law and, in particular, a clear understanding of the differences between the individual norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code.
Indeed, to qualify a committed act, from several articles of the Criminal Code it is necessary, as a rule, to select only one. And from this it follows that you need to be able to accurately draw a line of demarcation between the various elements of crimes provided for by the Criminal Code. The difficulty here is that many elements of crimes are similar to each other and it is not immediately possible to determine by what criminal law norm the committed act should be qualified. If we compare all the crimes provided for in the Criminal Code, then based on the number of similar features between them, three main cases can be distinguished:

a) the compositions do not have a single common feature among themselves (except for the sanity of the subject of the crime). For example, for the offenses of causing death by negligence (Article 109) and theft of a vehicle (Article 166), all the characteristics of the object, objective, subjective side and subject (except for sanity) are different. The differentiation of such elements is not difficult, and it is not required in practical work, because the crime committed cannot be simultaneously attributed to such different criminal law norms;

b) the compositions have several common features. This ratio applies, for example, to the offenses of theft of another’s property (Article 158) and kidnapping (Article 126). The objects of these crimes are different: in the first case it is property, in the second it is personal freedom. The subjects match, including age. The method of action (kidnapping can be secret) and the form of guilt (intention) partially coincide. But then again there are differences: in the subject of the assault and in the subjective side (when a person is kidnapped, a selfish goal is not necessary). And in these cases, the differentiation of crimes is not difficult, since it can be carried out according to several criteria;

c) the compositions have all the common features, except one, which is demarcating. Thus, theft differs from robbery only in the method of action (secret or open theft). The object, subject, subject of the attack, the subjective side of all types of theft of other people's property, as is known, are the same.

It is precisely such cases that cause the greatest difficulties in classifying crimes. Such compounds are easy to mix, especially if the only distinguishing feature is not clearly defined.

An analysis of the current criminal legislation shows that the compositions of the latter variety are found quite often in it: for more than half of the provisions of the Criminal Code one, two or more related compositions can be specified. Approximately 30% of compositions differ from each other by two or three characteristics, and over 15% - by four or more. There are “unique” compounds for which it is difficult to specify related norms (for example, violation of veterinary rules - Article 249 or unlawful access to computer information - Article 272).

Let us now consider the basic methods of distinguishing crimes by individual elements of the crime.

Based on the object of the crime, the differentiation of offenses is primarily associated with determining the place of the corresponding offense in the system of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. As already noted, this system is built mainly on the object of the attack, and when the elements of crimes are located in different chapters, this indicates the difference in their objects.

However, this is not a solution to the issue of delimiting crimes that are provided for in the same section or chapter. You cannot differentiate them by their generic object. In order to judge their direct objects, it is necessary to turn to the subject of the criminal offense, which is mostly named in the disposition of the criminal law norm (for example, “other people's property”, “weapons”, etc.), as well as to the signs of the objective side of the composition - action and harmful consequences. For example, from the text of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code (abuse of official powers), which provides as harmful consequences “a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state,” it is not difficult to conclude that this crime encroaches on the normal activities of government bodies and the interests of state services. This will be the direct object of this crime.

Another difficulty in distinguishing by object of crime is due to the fact that some acts encroach not on one, but on several objects. For example, many transport crimes encroach not only on the safety of traffic and operation of transport (the main object), but also on the life and health of people (an additional object). And there are many similar crimes. In such cases, it is necessary to distinguish these crimes from those where the main object is the life and health of people (crimes against the person). But as soon as the objects coincide, there is a need to use other distinguishing features (for example, signs of the objective side).

The differentiation of crimes on the objective side is less complicated, mainly because the signs, actions (inaction) and harmful consequences are usually described in detail in the article of the Criminal Code. The coincidence of signs of action (inaction) in several compounds is still possible and it is not so rare, but in this case the difference in consequences “helps out”. As an example, we can point to three related crimes: intentional infliction of grievous harm to health (Article 111), intentional infliction of moderate harm to health (Article 112) and intentional infliction of minor harm to health (Article 115). The method of action (inaction) in all three cases can be the same; these compounds are distinguished only by the nature of the consequences, which is reflected in their names.

The differentiation of crimes based on the subject of the crime also does not present great difficulties. There are three dividing lines here: age (criminal liability begins at 14 or 16 years old), signs of a special subject and previous criminal record. Special subjects are typical for many crimes: these are officials, transport workers, entrepreneurs, law enforcement officers, military personnel, etc. The presence of a special subject often helps to correctly determine the object of the crime. For example, if a crime can, according to the Criminal Code, be committed only by a military serviceman, then it must be assumed that it infringes on the interests of military service.

As for the previous conviction, it is mentioned only in those parts of the articles of the Criminal Code where aggravating circumstances are provided. Therefore, this sign does not help to distinguish the main composition from related ones and can only serve as an auxiliary means of distinguishing criminal law norms.

The distinction based on the subjective side of the crime is quite complex. Signs of the subjective side are not always mentioned in the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. In addition, some of them are optional (motive, purpose) and are not present in all specific manifestations of a particular act. It is no coincidence that most errors in the classification of crimes are associated precisely with incorrect definition of the signs of the subjective side.

The main distinguishing feature of the subjective side is the form of guilt (intention or negligence). Using this criterion, it is easy to distinguish many of those crimes that have the same objective signs and the same object, for example, intentional murder and deprivation of life by negligence, intentional and careless grievous bodily harm, etc.

It is clear that on this basis it is impossible to distinguish crimes in the commission of which any form of guilt is acceptable (for example, in many articles about violations of various rules). It should be noted that the new Criminal Code has significantly simplified the qualification of careless crimes, since in accordance with Art. 24 of the Criminal Code, this form of guilt is now directly indicated in the relevant articles. True, this requirement is not implemented in the Code consistently enough.

With the same intentional guilt, many crimes can be distinguished from each other according to the motive and (or) purpose of the offender. So, paragraph “b”, part 2 of Art. 105 provides for premeditated murder in connection with the victim’s performance of official activities or the performance of public duty. A Art. 277 establishes liability for an attack on the life of a statesman or public figure. What is the difference between these articles? First of all, in the object of a criminal attack: in case of murder it is a person’s life, in the second case - the constitutional system, the security of the state and also life. To differentiate, we must turn to the subjective side: in Art. 277 provides not only the intent to take life, but also the special purpose of the crime: the termination of state or other political activities of the victim - or a special motive: revenge for the said activity. If, other things being equal, this purpose or motive is established, Art. 277, not Art. 105 U K.

The differentiation of crimes does not necessarily have to be done in the sequence that we followed in the text. It can begin with any element of the composition, depending on such practical considerations as the availability of certain evidence in the case, the ease of establishing this particular characteristic in the first place, etc. It is important to emphasize the main thing: not a single element of the composition, not a single characteristic, can be forgotten , otherwise the distinction will be incomplete and therefore erroneous.

During the investigation and judicial consideration of a criminal case, the differentiation of crimes is not carried out in isolation from the establishment of the factual circumstances of the case. Both are combined in time, alternate and mutually influence each other. The differentiation of elements is not an end in itself, but a necessary stage in the qualification of a crime and the application of criminal law to the criminal.

Types of crime objects

Russian criminal law distinguishes between types of crime objects, relatively speaking, “vertically” and “horizontally”. The first classification traditionally distinguishes general, generic (sometimes called special) and direct objects of crime. They relate to each other like the philosophical categories “general”, “special” and “individual” (“separate”).

Types of crime objects “vertically”

The common object is the object of each and every crime. This is the totality of all socially significant values, interests, benefits protected by criminal law from criminal attacks. The general object of the crime, as noted, is presented in a generalized form in Art. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - human and civil rights and freedoms, property, public order and public safety, environment, constitutional system of the Russian Federation, peace and security of mankind. The common object is a whole, some part of which is encroached upon by each crime. The general object of the crime gives a holistic picture of those benefits, interests, values that modern society and the state consider so socially significant that they provide for criminal liability in the event of causing or the possibility of causing significant harm to them.

A generic object of a crime is an object of a group of homogeneous crimes, part of a common object. This is this or that area, the sphere of socially significant values, interests, benefits. An idea of the generic objects of crimes is given by the division of the Special Part of the Criminal Code into sections and chapters, since it is the generic object of the crime that forms the basis for the codification and classification of the norms of the Special Part. This primarily determines its fundamental significance. The generic objects of crimes include, for example, personality, property, public safety, management order, the interests of justice, the interests and order of military service, etc. The generic object of the crime is also important for the qualification of crimes - it allows you to determine which particular group, sphere of homogeneous interests damage has been caused or may be caused as a result of the commission of a criminal act (for example, an explosion may be accompanied by sabotage, terrorism, murder in a generally dangerous way, and even robbery. It is necessary to determine what essentially, what area of social interests is aimed at encroachment).

A species object can be designated as a subgroup of close, similar social benefits, included in a broader group of homogeneous, same-order values. A specific object is an object of a type (subgroup) of crimes that are very similar in nature. Thus, if the generic object of a large group of crimes is the individual (Section VII of the Special Part of the Criminal Code), then the specific objects can be considered life and health (Chapter 16), freedom, honor and dignity of the individual (Chapter 17), sexual integrity and sexual freedom of the individual (Chapter 18), etc. Thus, a specific object is an additional link in the vertical structure of crime objects. In some cases, it may be absent, coinciding with the generic one (in particular, when the section of the Special Part consists of only one chapter, for example, Section XI and Chapter 33 - crimes against military service).

The direct object of a crime is the object of a separate specific crime, part of a generic object. The direct object is a mandatory feature of each crime. This is any specific benefit that is directly targeted by the encroachment. So, in crimes against the person the direct objects. may be life (for example, when committing a murder), health (for example, when causing varying degrees of severity of harm to health), personal freedom (for example, when kidnapping a person), honor and dignity of the individual (for example, when insulting), etc. The direct object of the crime has important practical significance for qualifying the act.

Types of crime objects “horizontally”

There are also varieties of crime objects “horizontally”. This refers mainly to the immediate object. There are crimes that simultaneously encroach on two immediate objects - the so-called dual-object crimes (for example, during robbery, an attack is carried out simultaneously on both property and person). In such cases, a distinction is usually made between:

the main, or main, object of the crime;
additional object of the crime (mandatory or optional).

This distinction is made not according to the degree of significance of the object, but according to its connection with the generic object of crimes of this group. So, in the above example, robbery is a crime against property, this determines its location in the system of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (Chapter 21, Section VIII), and therefore property will be the main object here, and the person (life or health) will be an additional one.

An additional object can be either necessary (mandatory) or optional. In the same composition of robbery, life or health is always a necessary additional object of the crime, since without an attack on the person there can be no robbery. However, there are cases when an additional object of the crime is specified in the law in an alternative form. For example, when water is polluted (Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), significant harm can be caused, in addition to the water sources themselves, to flora and fauna, fish stocks, forestry or agriculture. Each of these additional objects of the crime is optional, since in a specific case of commission of a given crime, damage can only be caused to one of the above.

3.7857142857143