Fine for violating public order, types of violations and liability

In jurisprudence there are such concepts as public safety and public order. Failure to ensure general safety and disruption of social order negatively affects the rights of respectable and law-abiding citizens. Actions committed contrary to the interests of the population are always punishable by law. In our article we will take a detailed look at the form in which violations of public order can occur and what laws provide for liability for those responsible.

Public order concept

Public order is a system of norms of relationships, adherence to principles and values ​​for the peaceful, comfortable coexistence of people.
The rules of behavior for all representatives of society are the same. They became established over time during the development of statehood, religion, and civic consciousness. Main norms:

1. Unacceptability of obscene language and aggression towards other people.
2. Maintaining silence at night.
3. Causing psychological and material harm to members of society, infringement of their rights and freedoms.

An immoral attitude towards other people is a violation of law and order. If an individual or a group of people ignore generally accepted standards due to gaps in education, personality degradation, then they violate social order to one degree or another.

Order is a vague concept for a multipolar society in which people of different religious denominations and nationalities live. Each social group has its own personal traditions and standards determined by moral standards. For example, it is normal for Muslims to slaughter cattle in public view. For Orthodox Christians this is unacceptable and is comparable to vandalism.

When classifying violations, the degree of danger of illegal actions for civil society is taken into account. Definitions of violations are prescribed in legislative acts. Minor offenses are classified in Chap. 20 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, serious acts - in Ch. 9 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Responsibility for drinking alcoholic beverages in public places

In many public places it is prohibited not only to smoke, but also to drink alcoholic beverages. Law No. 171-FZ “On state regulation of the production and turnover of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic and alcohol-containing products...” (Clause 7, Article 16) introduces a list of places where drinking alcohol is not allowed.

Here are some of them that are different from those prohibited for smoking:

• athletic facilities;
• combat positions of troops, training grounds, communication centers, military units, etc. buildings and structures of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation;
• places of mass gathering of citizens during public events;
• recreational areas: forests, squares, parks, lakes, etc.

Drinking alcohol purchased in a public catering facility is permitted only within the premises of such facility.

The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation introduces sanctions:

Appearing in a public place while intoxicated is considered an offense, regardless of where the alcohol was consumed.

The Constitutional Court emphasized that the norm of Art. 20.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is aimed at protecting order, morality, life and health of citizens, since persons intoxicated create a threat not only to themselves, but also to others.

The key point of the violation is an insult to human dignity and morality:

• rude shouts, gestures, pestering people;
• an unkempt appearance that causes disgust: dirty clothes, redness of the skin, smell;
• inability to navigate, impaired coordination of movements, helplessness up to loss of consciousness.

Application of Art. 20.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation requires proof of the fact of intoxication. ATS use a procedure similar to a medical examination of drivers, but this is not entirely true. Therefore, being in a state of intoxication can be proven by appearance using witness testimony.

What constitutes a public nuisance?

Violation is an administrative illegal outrage that contradicts generally accepted norms of behavior.
A person or group of people commits acts of violence, causing harm to other members of society. Any acts in public places that offend the feelings of others should be regarded as indecent human behavior. Committed:

• unintentional, if a person offended another by accident without malicious intent;
• intentional - dangerous phenomena in society, entailing not only insult to the feelings of individuals, but also serious consequences.

Failure to comply with norms of behavior is exerting a negative indirect influence on one or several individuals in society. For example, if a crowd of people unwittingly become observers of obscene events taking place.

The violation is classified as disrespect and offensive acts towards other citizens. It should be distinguished from other related conflicts that can be imputed to the accused in order to attract punishment.

Composition of offenses

To qualify an act as a violation of public order, it is necessary to have all the characteristics corresponding to a specific article. So, in the case of applying an administrative norm, the composition will be as follows:

1. object - social relations that have developed in connection with ensuring public order;
2. the objective side is disrespect for social principles, expressed in obscene language, insults and damage to property;
3. subject - a sane citizen who has reached 16 years of age;
4. the subjective side is direct intent.

The criminal offense will be classified as follows:

• object - public order;
• the objective side is a violation of order, expressed in disrespect for social principles and rules;
• subject under part 1 - a person over 16 years of age, under part 2 or 3 - over 14 years of age;
• the subjective side is always direct intent.

Law enforcement agencies need to clearly distinguish between situations when the use of a criminal article is considered adequate, and when - an administrative one. It is obvious that the criminal norm provides for liability in the event of a higher public danger, while the administrative norm, most often, does not have significant consequences. For example, swearing in a public place is obviously a violation, but holding a person criminally responsible for it is not fair.

Administrative violation of order

A clear display of disrespect for society.
Belongs to the category of petty hooliganism. It is not rude if it does not pose a danger to society, without causing serious harm. Types of minor illegal acts:

• noise, obscene language, use of profanity at prohibited times;
• drinking alcohol, smoking in public places;
• rowdy;
• pestering people, but in an offensive context (beggars, fortune tellers on the street are exceptions);
• intentional damage, damage to someone else's property.

Hooliganism is a common phenomenon. It is not considered rude unless it leads to aggression towards other people.

In general, actions can be divided into:

1. Legal. Unacceptable behavior described in laws that threatens the life and health of people, public safety.
2. Illegal, not covered by law (obscene language). No administrative measure is provided. The attackers get off with reprimands from others.

Administrative responsibility according to the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation

In addition to the main offenses provided for by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, almost every region has its own laws establishing liability for other types of violations of public order:

• Article 3.4 of the Moscow Region Code of Administrative Offenses provides for a fine of up to 5,000 rubles for those citizens who do not comply with restrictions aimed at ensuring public order and morality.
• Article 2.4 of the Law of the Arkhangelsk Region “On Administrative Violations” provides for liability for violators of silence and public order at night - from 10 pm to 7 am on weekdays and from 10 pm to 10 am on weekends and holidays in apartment buildings, courtyards, etc. d. Those involved in scandals in the entrances of apartment buildings, as well as those who like to set off fireworks, firecrackers, etc. at the specified time (with the exception of New Year's Eve) they may be fined up to 2,500 rubles.
• in accordance with Article 49 of the Code of the Omsk Region on Administrative Offenses, officials can be fined 3,000 rubles for failure to comply with their duties to limit access to the premises of objects with large numbers of citizens (educational or sports institutions, cultural facilities, etc.), which resulted in a violation public order.
• on the basis of Art. 7.2 of the Law “On Administrative Offenses in the Orenburg Region” a citizen can be fined 3,000 rubles (for a repeated violation - 5,000 rubles) for performing natural necessities in a public place.
• Article 2.7 of the Law of the Republic of Karelia “On Administrative Offenses” provides for a fine of up to 2,500 rubles for violating public order when attending cultural, entertainment and other public events.
• Article 11.4 of the Law of the Ryazan Region “On Administrative Offences” provides for a fine of up to 2,000 rubles for street fortune-telling, pestering citizens and begging.

Criminal disorderly conduct

Large-scale hooliganism (disregard for society), incomparable to minor administrative offenses.
Personal hostility towards others manifests itself in an aggressive form and begins to create a potential danger for people’s way of life and everyday life. Acts that are regarded as criminal offenses:

• use of weapons (bits, fittings, hammers, piercing objects);
• physical and moral impact on the victim;
• inciting hostility and hatred based on ideological, national, social, political, and racial motives.

A violation is regarded as hooliganism if it is committed due to disrespect for society in any place: deserted or with crowds of people.

If intent is not established, there will be no element of hooliganism.

The concept of petty hooliganism

Article 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses gives the concept of petty hooliganism. It is understood as a violation of public order, which is expressed in some kind of disrespect for society. In this case, the following actions must be performed:

• expressions considered obscene spoken in a public place;
• offensive actions towards other citizens, including those related to damage to their property.

Actions may be associated with qualifying, that is, aggravating characteristics expressed in other parts of the same article. Thus, Part 2 states that the sanction is enhanced if, in addition to these violations, the person refuses to comply with the legal demands of law enforcement officers.

The article also classifies the dissemination of data discrediting public foundations in the media as petty hooliganism. Such information must be clearly offensive in relation to the state, society as a whole, and offend human dignity and morality.

Violation of public order also includes criminal article No. 213 . Here we are talking about a gross violation, which is carried out with the use of third-party objects, weapons, as well as with aggravating motives, for example, due to political or religious hatred, or intolerance.

Administrative responsibility

To solve the problem, law enforcement officers use punitive or educational measures.
In order to prevent hooliganism, campaigning and preventive conversations are carried out. The punishment system involves not only introducing measures in the form of fines or imprisonment, but also issuing warnings for such behavior. Petty hooliganism is common.

Punishment options:

• arrest up to 15 days;
• fine – 500 rubles;
• administrative arrest in case of a recorded fact of disobedience to police officers.

According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, when forming a punishment option after committing a hooligan-type crime, the fine starts from 500 rubles. Reaches up to 1 million rubles.

Arrest is used when beating a citizen or causing harm to health with aggravating consequences.

The size of the fine depends on the crime, the motives of the people, the degree of damage and harm caused. Criminal sanctions are available depending on the case. Corrective labor may be imposed for a sentence of up to 2 years.

Responsibility for smoking in public places

Increased attention is paid to protecting the health of citizens in public places.

Art. 12 of Law No. 15-FZ “On protecting the health of citizens from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke...” prohibits smoking:

• in the territories and premises where educational, medical and sanatorium-resort services are provided;
• services of cultural organizations and youth affairs bodies;
• physical education and sports services;

If a citizen violates the smoking ban in such places, he faces a fine under Art. 6.24 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation:

• from 2,000 to 3,000 rub. - for smoking on the playground;
• from 500 to 1,000 rub. in other cases.

Example - Decision of the Moscow City Court dated September 30, 2015 in case No. 7-8235/2015 on holding a citizen liable for smoking at a distance of less than 15 meters from a metro station.

Law on insulting public morals

Yesterday the news feeds were full of reports that the State Duma had introduced a bill https://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/954048-7, which proposes to make officials liable for insulting citizens by amending Art. 5.62 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. But, if you read the entire bill, it turns out there is another interesting novelty - a new edition of Part 1 of Art. 5.62 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which will read like this: Insult, that is, humiliation of the honor and dignity of another person or humiliation of the dignity of a group of persons, expressed in an indecent or other form that offends public morality.

In the explanatory note, the legislators explain that an analysis of law enforcement practice shows that the existing mechanism for protecting the honor and dignity of citizens from humiliation, including that contained in publicly displayed works and the media, is not effective enough. In accordance with the disposition of Article 5.61 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (“Insult”), the mandatory qualifying feature of this act is indecent form. Meanwhile, humiliation of a person’s honor and dignity, especially through the media, does not necessarily have to be expressed in an indecent form. It seems that such a novel finally and irrevocably distorts the original essence of such an offense as an insult. Or it demonstrates his lack of understanding. It is traditionally believed that this act encroaches on the personal, non-property benefits of a person, such as honor and dignity, but this forgets the fact that state prosecution of such an act is also intended to make revenge humane, protecting the offender from excessive revenge. Since insult gives rise to resentment, and resentment gives rise to a thirst for revenge, which can have an extremely severe form and dangerous consequences, it is the regulation of revenge that underlies the legal regulation of insult.

Let us explain this thesis. Revenge is the oldest emotion, nurtured in us by evolution as one of the moral regulators. It is rooted essentially in a sense of power and superiority. It occurs in response to the experience of damage caused by resentment, and aims to improve the “well-being” diminished or worsened by the experienced damage. Revenge is a reaction to the feeling of inferiority that the aggressor instills in his victim. A disadvantaged person naturally does not want to feel inferior to another person and, therefore, strives, by taking revenge for aggression, to show that he is equal to the aggressor or even superior to him. Revenge best serves the purpose of replenishing feelings of inferiority and resentment when it is directed at the aggressor himself, but taking any particular direction is not essential for it, since it is initially “undirected” and unlimited.

The first stage through which revenge passed in the history of the human race, he says, was characterized by complete or almost complete promiscuity. The purpose of the offended man was merely to improve his own aggrieved "feelings" by inflicting suffering on someone else, and his wild desire was satisfied regardless of whether the person on whom his anger was poured out was guilty or innocent. Thus, the Navajo Indians, jealous of their wives, tend to unleash irritability and anger on the first person who gets in their way; an Australian father, whose small child was accidentally injured, attacks innocent neighbors, believing that by doing so he is distributing the pain between them and, therefore, alleviates the child’s suffering. The effect of this stage still remains in us; it can be seen when a spouse offended at work/at home begins to take out his anger in the form of revenge on his family/subordinates.

In the next stage, revenge becomes somewhat less indiscriminate. A suitable victim is sought, even in those cases which we would call natural death, for the savage usually attributes it to the malice of some enemy skilled in witchcraft. Among the Chitrals (Pamir), if someone’s neighbor’s dog stole meat, this person, in a fit of anger, not only killed the offending dog, but in addition to this, also kicked his own. And this legacy still sits in us when we break dishes in anger, throw a phone or kick some object.

This was followed by a stage of discriminating and targeted revenge, when it persecuted a specific offender or his group (tribe, family). The final stage in the evolution of revenge was the concept of punishing a specific culprit and no one else. Thus the human mind rationalized the mechanics of revenge, realizing that revenge directed against the offender is especially suitable for eliminating the feeling of humiliation, since it effectively humiliates the enemy, who had previously reveled in his triumph. At these stages of human development, norms of traditional law, called customs, began to appear. That is, morality, as a means of regulating social relations in traditional societies, consists and is expressed in such customs. There is practically no talk about freedom of behavior in such a society: how one should act is determined by religion, community and relatives who protect customs.

One of these customs was blood feud. The custom of blood feud is that in the event of murder or injury or insult to any person, the victim or his relatives are obliged to take revenge on the offender by taking his life. Failure to fulfill this duty gave rise to the most terrible moral consequence - shame, and in some cases - tribal ostracism (exile). The horror of this custom, designed to eliminate the insult caused, incl. insult, lies in the fact that the relatives of the new victim also consider themselves obliged to fulfill the custom of blood feud (“blood for blood”). This process can take a long time, leading to the death of many people.” That is, this custom sanctions the so-called honor killings, examples of which can still be found. And no matter how much they try to romanticize and rationalize noble duels, in fact they are still the same bloodshed, only in beautiful toilets. Listing them is beyond the scope of this post. But the moral logic of this custom is clear; fear of revenge forced people to be more careful in their choice of words and actions. The same customs include “baranta”, which was used in Central Asia. Its essence boiled down to the opportunity to steal livestock from the offender. The most important thing to learn from the history of the formation of the feeling of revenge is that revenge has always been a reaction to a personal insult. At the same time, revenge could be delegated, for example, a man from the clan would take revenge for insulting a woman. And the possibility of delegating revenge became the main condition for the possibility of public defense of private grievances.

Thomas Hobbes was right when he argued that in the pre-state period life was “solitary, poor, dirty, brutish, and short.” Not, he argued, because people have an innate bloodlust or aggressive instincts, but because of the very logic of anarchy. In a state of anarchy, there is a constant temptation to preemptively attack your neighbor before he attacks you. One way to solve this problem is deterrence: you do not strike first, but publicly declare that you will mercilessly retaliate if your territory is invaded. This means that you must take revenge for all attacks, which will lead to new rounds of bloody vendetta. Hobbes's solution, Leviathan, is to entrust the legitimate use of violence to a single, democratically elected agency - the Leviathan - which will reduce the temptation to attack, since any aggression will be punished, rendering its effectiveness null and void. Indeed, the period of declining murder rates in Europe coincided with the rise of centralized states. Having monopolized the violence used to protect territories, the state could not help but monopolize violence for personal grievances. The logical consequence of such monopolization was the fight against the customs of revenge. For example, in 1928, the 10th chapter “Crimes constituting remnants of tribal life” appeared in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. In 1931, after the adoption of an amendment to the Criminal Code, murders motivated by blood feud became “state crimes”, punishable by execution. Komsomol members united in committees to combat the custom of blood feud and monitored such cases. However, this custom could not be eliminated. And already at the end of the Soviet era, councils of elders created by the authorities existed completely legally in the regions, and in post-Soviet times, in the event of fatal conflicts, the population was recommended to turn to the Sharia court.

However, with the development of the ideas of humanism and the rule of law, “Leviathan” completely took upon itself the function of revenge for the insult inflicted, taking away this responsibility from the offended and his avenging agent. At the same time, death as state revenge-punishment was replaced by fines or other punishments, the use of which the state considers will achieve the original goal of revenge - eliminating the grievance. But the structure itself: insult-personal resentment-revenge remains. Taking into account this construction, it seems that the idea proposed by the bill to punish for insulting the “dignity of a group of persons” is absurd, since the offense caused by the insult can only be personal.

The entire history of revenge, as a reaction to insult, was built solely on personal insult. By recognizing insult as an offense, the state has always sought to protect exclusively the individual, because dignity cannot be collective. Otherwise, it can be assumed that another group of people may be responsible for insulting one group of people, because if there is a collective insult, then why can’t there be collective offenders. But it is precisely this flawed logic that underlies genocides, wars and repression. At their core there is always a collective enemy who encroaches on ways and customs.

And here we come to another criterion proposed by the legislator - offending public morality. As has already been said, any morality and morality as a set of rules serves the interests of preserving the group. Morality as a control mechanism cannot be offended, just like any rule, it can only be violated and received appropriate punishment for it. But with the collapse of traditional society and the transition to the rule of law, morality turned from a means to an end. Supporters of such an integration of morality into legal regulation proceed from the fact that morality is valuable in that it ensures the preservation of society from anarchy. At the same time, threats are now seen not in general violence, but in the wrong words, in the wrong films, in the wrong clothes. Those. the essence of morality will be replaced by form. But such logic is characteristic exclusively of traditional society, where there is no freedom. Modern society, built on the ideas of rights and freedoms, cannot coexist with a norm designed to protect public morality from insults. The very practice of introducing punishment for immoral behavior is archaic. After all, such a requirement leaves freedom to do only what does not offend anyone, but such freedom is worthless. She simply disappears. Therefore, such initiatives are absolutely unacceptable in a state whose Constitution still contains mentions of freedom.

Liability for violations in public places during the coronavirus period

The concept of a public place in 2021 began to be applied in relation to new circumstances - the spread of coronavirus infection. In connection with this, many regions of Russia have obliged people to observe a mask regime, and, if necessary, quarantine.

At the same time, regional authorities have established lists of public places in which people are required to wear masks. And since April 2021, new types of liability for coronavirus violations have appeared.

We talk more about fines due to coronavirus in a separate article.