The relevance of the topic under study is manifested in the fact that the subject and object of the crime play an important role both in legislative and law enforcement practice.
Establishing the subject and object of the crime reveals the true direction of the crime. In connection with this, the object and subject of the crime, their relationships and differences in legislation are examined.
Object (Late Latin objektum - subject, from Latin objicio - throw forward, oppose) is a philosophical category that characterizes what confronts the subject in his objective-practical or cognitive activity, what it is aimed at.
The problem of the object of the crime is extremely important in criminal law. It is the object that expresses the nature of the public danger of the act encroaching on it, and the amount of damage to the object is the main criterion for determining the degree of public danger of the act.
The object of the crime is reflected in the Special Part of codified criminal legal acts: crimes in them can be grouped into sections and chapters based on the generic object of the crime [1].
The object of the crime is considered among the elements of the crime.
In foreign criminal legislation, which predominantly uses a formal definition of a crime, the object of a crime is rarely identified as an independent category, and other criteria are used to classify criminal law norms during their codification (even placing them in alphabetical order) [9].
In some ways, similar to the category “object of crime” is the category of “criminal harm” used by theorists of the realistic direction of Anglo-American criminal law science, understood as the loss of social values (life, freedom, honor and money; general security; social, family and religious formations; general morality; social resources; general progress; personal life) as a result of committing a crime [8].
In Russia (mid-19th century), the doctrine of the object of a crime was developed within the framework of the normativist trend in criminal law. Normativist theory viewed crime as a violation of a formal rule of law; Accordingly, the criminal law norm itself was declared the object of the crime [9].
This point of view made it possible to significantly advance the doctrine of the object from pure normativism to the essence of the phenomenon itself, since the rule of law was not considered in itself, but as a rule in a real legal relationship.
At the same time, another theory was proposed, which suggested that the object of a crime is a certain subjective right of a person.
So, V.D. Spasovich wrote that “a crime is an illegal encroachment on someone’s right, so significant that the state, considering this right one of the necessary conditions for living together, in the absence of other protective means, protects its inviolability with punishment” [14].
The theory of subjective law, as well as the normativist one, was criticized by N.S. Tagantsev, who noted in this regard that “an encroachment on a subjective right is not the essence, but only a means by which the offender encroaches on the rule of law on which the subjective right rests... Law in the subjective sense, in turn, represents an abstract concept, just like norm, and therefore in itself, as a general rule, cannot be the direct object of a criminal attack until it finds expression in a specifically existing good or interest... For a criminal attack on such a right... an attack on the manifestation of this right is necessary” [15].
After the October Revolution, the concept was established in Soviet criminal law, according to which the object of a crime is social relations protected by criminal law; this position continues to remain relevant and appears in many modern textbooks and scientific publications [9].
So, A.A. Piontkovsky, one of the developers of the doctrine of crime in Soviet criminal law, believed that the object of any crime is only social relations, and not all, but only those protected by the apparatus of criminal legal coercion. “The social relations of a socialist society,” he wrote, “are a common object, which is ultimately encroached upon by any crime provided for by Soviet legislation” [12].
This position was subsequently supported by the majority of authors and became generally accepted both in the theory and practice of criminal law [11].
The life of people in society exists in the form of social relations. And if we talk about the structure of a specific social relationship, then social relations consist of three elements: subjects (participants, parties to the social relationship); object (that thing or good about which there is a relationship); as well as social connection between participants (attitude content) [17].
The subject of a social relationship is everything in connection with which such a relationship arises and exists. In one case, these can be material objects - things, money, real estate, etc., in another - spiritual values.
Within the framework of this theory, the object of a crime can be considered a system of typical, stable social relations of a certain type as a whole, or an individual social connection disrupted by a specific crime [18].
According to this theory, a crime can violate various elements of social relations; the criminal can directly affect:
- their subjects, using physical or mental violence against them;
- the subject about which social relations arise, or directly;
- the relationship between participants in a social relationship, preventing the implementation of any activity or evading the fulfillment of social duties [19].
This theory is subject to criticism: for example, Professor A.V. Naumov notes that this theory is not suitable for all crimes that are provided for by criminal law: so, if the definition of the object of theft from these positions is simple (these are social property relations), then the definition of the object, for example, crimes against life as some kind of social relations is very problematic; therefore, this theory is not universal [10; 13].
This especially applies to crimes against the person, primarily murder. Therefore A.V. Naumov proposes to recognize as the object of a crime those benefits (interests) that are encroached upon by a criminal act and that are protected by criminal law.
The object of crimes against life within the framework of this theory are social relations that protect life, but A.A. Ter-Akopov wrote the following on this occasion: “To recognize as the essence of murder a violation of the order of relations that protect human life means to turn values upside down: to recognize the main social value not of a person, but of the social relations in which he is included and which exist , in fact, for his sake” [16].
According to A.A. Ter-Akopova, a person must always be recognized as an independent object of a crime; social relations the object of a crime can only act as a legal order established to ensure the rights, freedoms and interests of the individual (property, state and public security, management, military service, etc.).
Among other interpretations of the object, one can name the following: the object of the crime is “the one against whom it is committed, i.e. individuals or a number of persons, whose material or intangible assets, being placed under criminal legal protection, are subject to criminal influence, as a result of which harm is caused to these persons or a threat of harm is created” [20].
In recently published manuals on criminal law, prepared by researchers from the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as teachers from Moscow State University, it is proposed to return to the theory of the object of a crime as a legal good, which was developed at the end of the 19th century. representatives of classical and sociological schools of criminal law [10; 13; 9].
However, it must be borne in mind that refusal to recognize social relations as the object of a crime can lead to a severance of the natural connection of criminal law with other branches of law. Blanket dispositions of criminal law norms initially presuppose the regulation of social relations by the norms of other branches of law (for example, evasion of taxes and (or) fees from an individual or organization - Articles 198, 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; failure to fulfill the duties of a tax agent - Article 199.1 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; violation of traffic safety rules and operation of railway, air or water transport - Article 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, etc.). [14].
The list and content of those values of society that are protected by criminal law change over time, depending on the socio-economic conditions prevailing in a particular historical period. N.S. Tagantsev wrote on this occasion: “The sum of such law-protected interests, the outline of each of them separately, their mutual relationship, etc. change in the history of each nation in accordance with changes in the conditions of state and social life, with the development of culture” [9].
This evolution of social values can be traced through the example of Soviet and later Russian criminal law of the 20th century, which reflected the evolution of the social system that took place during this historical period.
As an object of crime, social relations received normative reinforcement. Thus, according to the Guidelines for Criminal Law of the RSFSR of 1919, the general object of crimes was the order of social relations “corresponding to the interests of the working masses.”
In the Criminal Code of 1996, there was a reassessment of the priority of objects of criminal legal protection.
The general object of a crime is considered to be the entire set of social relations protected and protected by criminal law. This, as stated above and in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, also enshrined in Chapter. 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, such as: the right to life (Article 20); the right to freedom and personal security (Article 22); the right to participate in state affairs (Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), etc., is also property, public order and public safety, the environment, the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, peace and security of mankind.
Thus, criminal law regulates social relations that may arise in the event of the commission of crimes,
The object of a crime is recognized as social relations protected by criminal law, to which harm is caused by the crime or a real threat of harm is created.
It should be recognized that this definition of the object of criminal legal protection, which in the event of an attack on it can become the object of a crime, is extremely successful in form and correct in content.
Vertical views of objects. Based on the content of Art. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the structure of its Special Part, one can come to the conclusion that social relations protected by criminal law are very heterogeneous. In this regard, in the science of criminal law there arose a need to systematize the objects of crime depending on the magnitude of social significance, i.e. If possible, present the structure of the crime object. With the adoption of the new Criminal Code, a fundamentally new structure was introduced, since the division of the Special Part was made not only into chapters, but also into sections.
Based on the general philosophical categories of general, special and individual, the science of criminal law divides the objects of crime into general, generic, specific and direct object of crime.
Types of objects horizontally. The direct object can be: primary, additional, optional.
Subject of the crime. The subject of the crime is not always an expression of the object of the crime. It is such when it coincides with the subject of a protected social relationship. For example, the object of crimes against property are property relations that develop regarding the rights to own, use and dispose of property. In this case, the property will be both the subject of property relations and the subject of crimes against property, such as theft, since it is by acting on the property (by confiscating it and turning it to his advantage) that the perpetrator causes harm to the owner.
However, in a number of cases, the subject of the crime is not an element of the object of the crime, since it is not the subject of a social relationship protected by law. For example, in case of counterfeiting (Article 186 of the Criminal Code), the subject of the crime is counterfeit (counterfeit) money or securities, while the subject of legally protected relations in the sphere of financial activity of the state is genuine money and securities. Therefore, the subject of the crime is an independent optional element of the crime.
In Russian pre-revolutionary criminal law, the concepts of “subject of crime” and “object of crime” were often used as synonyms. In the modern theory of criminal law, the concepts of object and subject of a crime have different content.
The object of the crime is the social relations that are harmed by the crime. In this sense, the object of the crime is one of the four elements of the crime.
Within this element there are three characteristics: mandatory, i.e. the object itself, and optional ones, i.e. the subject of the crime and the victim. The subject of the crime and the victim are optional features because they are specified in the law not in all elements of the crime, but only in some.
The subject of a crime is a thing, an element of the material world, which is influenced during the commission of a crime. For example, the subject of theft is the stolen property itself, the subject of bribery is the money received by an official, the subject of smuggling is goods moved across the border. The sign of the subject of the crime in the crime is optional [10; 13].
One can agree with the position that most often, the subject of the crime is of a material nature. For example, the subject in crimes against property (property), in many crimes against the order of government (official documents, seals, state awards), in environmental and transport crimes (animals, trees and shrubs, vines, vehicles, communications, main pipelines) and so on.
However, in some cases the subject of the crime does not have such a physical nature. For example, by disclosing information that constitutes a state secret (Article 283 of the Criminal Code), the perpetrator may not directly influence any thing in the material world, but simply make the relevant information public.
Thus, in crimes related to illegal actions in relation to information, the subject of the crime can be presented in the form of intellectual value.
According to Art. 2 of the Federal Law of February 20, 1995 No. 24-FZ “On information, informatization and information protection” information is information about persons, objects, facts, events, phenomena and processes, regardless of the form of their presentation.
This means that information may not have a materialized form. The subject of these crimes is not only documented information (document), i.e. information recorded on a material medium in which information is reflected in the form of symbols, images, signals, fields, etc., but also any other. Consequently, the understanding of the subject of the crime is broader.
The object of the crime must be distinguished from the subject of the crime.
The relationship between the object of the crime and its subject is illustrated by the following example. In case of theft, the direct object is property relations, and the subject is personal items, radio products, a car, etc.
An object, unlike an object, is not always harmed; for example, if a car is stolen, it may not lose its properties, while the owner’s ability to use it is lost.
The subject of the crime sometimes acts as a circumstance that changes the basic composition to its qualified type [16]. For example, when the personal property of citizens is stolen, Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and if the subject of the theft is a firearm, then the act should be qualified under Art. 226 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The subject of the crime is important for the qualification of the offense, in particular when assessing the criminal consequences. Thus, in the case of theft, it is the value of the subject of the crime in monetary terms; The types of thefts are identified on the same basis.
The criterion for classifying an act as criminal can also be the object on which the attack is made, for example, in the case of destruction or damage to property due to negligence (Article 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), criminal liability arises only if the damage was caused on a large scale, namely 500 times the minimum amount of payment labor, otherwise we will talk about a tortious obligation.
The subject of a crime, when it is of a material nature, must be distinguished from the instruments and means of committing a criminal act.
One and the same object of the material world can in one case be the subject of a crime, and in another - a means or instrument of its commission. For example, a set of duplicating equipment can be the subject of theft if it is illegally and gratuitously removed from a store, but it can also be a means of counterfeiting. A carbine may be the subject of a crime under Art. 226 of the Criminal Code, but also as a murder weapon [20].
A person is actually the subject of a crime, however, bearing in mind the ethicality of using the term “subject” in relation to a person, in this case we are talking about the victim.
The characteristics of such a person may have a criminal legal meaning similar to the meaning of the characteristics of the subject (for example, when qualifying sexual crimes, crimes against life and health, as well as when assigning punishment for a crime committed). However, in this case, the concept of “victim” is usually used, and not “the subject of the crime” [10; 13].
Establishing the subject and object of the crime greatly helps to identify the true direction of the crime. The significance of the signs of the subject of a crime lies in its use to distinguish between criminal and non-criminal behavior, as well as related crimes [20].
In conclusion, it should be noted, firstly, that not all crimes contain a subject. Pointless elements of a crime, when a criminal attack is aimed at non-material benefits, for example, Art. 240 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Involvement in prostitution.”
Secondly, when determining the subject of a crime, the greatest difficulty is the question of what exactly the crime is capable of influencing: only material values or both material and spiritual ones.
What is distinctive about the first of the solutions to this issue found in the literature is that in the subject of the crime it is proposed to see only elements of social relations that are of a material nature (things, participants in the relationship). Excluding the ability of a crime to have an impact on the intangible (actions, processes, ideas, etc.), adherents of this point of view consider it justified to talk about the existence of “pointless” crimes, which mainly include attacks committed in a passive form (through inaction).
In the second option for resolving the issue, any element of a social relationship is recognized as the subject of a crime, regardless of whether it is material or not: if in the process of encroachment there is an impact on a participant in a social relationship, then he is a participant and is the subject of a crime; when a criminal directly affects a thing (for example, during theft), then the subject of the crime is this thing; and, finally, when a social relationship is violated by modifying the actions of its participants (for example, in case of criminal inaction), the subject is recognized as the activity of the culprit himself. Since, from the point of view of supporters of this approach, it is impossible to encroach on public relations without influencing any of its elements, then on this basis a conclusion is drawn about the absence of so-called “pointless” crimes [10; 13].
However, the structure of a specific social relationship is represented by the following elements:
a) two or more parties (subjects of the relationship);
b) conduct of the parties;
c) the subject in relation to which such behavior occurs.
The subject of a social relationship is everything in connection with which such a relationship arises and exists. There are no meaningless relationships. If there can be no pointless relationships, then there can be no pointless crimes as an integral part of a criminal relationship. This means that crime can have an impact on both material and intangible values. And the assertion that the subject of a crime is objects of the material world is due to the fact that material objects of social relations play a disproportionately more important role in the commission of a crime than intangible ones.
Thus, the object of a crime is those social relations protected by criminal law that are encroached upon by a socially dangerous and criminally punishable act; the subject of social relations is what social relations are about; the subject of the crime is an integral part of protected social relations; Since there are no pointless crimes, the subject of the crime is an object of the material world or an intellectual value that is affected during the commission of a crime and harm is caused to public relations as the object of the crime.
Rights of the guilty person
The offender has the right:
- to tell the truth;
- appear in court after being subpoenaed;
- have a lawyer or receive one in court;
- do not oppose yourself;
- not to give any evidence;
- apply for a review of the case;
- be in hospital for health reasons at the time of the trial;
- actively contribute to the cause;
- provide assistance to the victim;
- voluntarily compensate for material and moral damage;
- allege aggravating circumstances;
- expose other criminals acting with him at the time of the crime, declare the work of other groups and other actions.
However, the guilty person is prohibited from appearing at the courthouse without a good reason, resisting all work of the investigative team, giving false testimony, and interfering with the trial.
Composition of the offense and examples
The composition of an administrative offense can be material and formal. The first is characterized by the fact that the offender’s actions led to negative consequences. For example, a person was driving a vehicle while intoxicated and hit a pedestrian. The victim received serious injuries. In this case, the object of the offense is considered to be driving while intoxicated, the consequence is a collision with a pedestrian, and the result is causing physical harm to the victim.
Most often, offenders are brought to administrative liability, which has a formal structure. In this case, the person’s actions do not lead to negative consequences. Only the fact of committing an illegal act is taken into account.
| Item no. | Article of the Administrative Code | An example of an administrative offense that has a formal composition |
| 1 | 12.1 | Driving a vehicle that is not properly registered. |
| 2 | 12.7 | Driving a car without a license |
| 3 | 12.5 | Driving a disabled vehicle |
| 4 | 12.9 | Exceeding speed limits while driving a vehicle |
| 5 | 12.8 | Driving while drunk |
Regardless of the type of offense, if it is present, the offender is held accountable. It should be noted that sanctions against the guilty person can be applied not only on the basis of a court decision, but also by other authorized bodies, for example, by decision of the senior district police officer.
Rate the quality of the article. Your opinion is important to us:
Is the subject of a crime in criminal law different from the object
The object is considered to be the one at which the action is aimed, which could be harmed as a result of the offense. Usually the object is the most important social values, interests, and benefits. They are listed together in Art. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It includes inalienable privileges along with freedoms, property, and social order.
Other differences:
- The first rarely appears as part of an offense. Of course, in theft, bribery, counterfeiting, there cannot be a crime without it. However, certain actions may not have it at all. For example, insulting a person or slander.
- The object is different from the weapon and the object with which the crime was committed. But many things can be of the same kind.
- The subject, if we are talking about an attempt on a specific person, is replaced by the concept of “victim”. The full definition can be found in the Code. This concept, in addition to law, is also used in any other criminal law matter and criminology.
An object is classified as a certain thing, thanks to which the guilty person unlawfully acts on a person. An object always acts as a value, and at the same time, an object is a material substance: for example, when a car is stolen, it is an object; the relationships that arise about this are an object.
