Hello, dear readers of the KtoNaNovenkogo.ru blog. The desire to live in a legal environment is logical for any sane person.
The safety of life and the inviolability of private property depend on knowledge and compliance with the rules of law by all members of society (what is this?).
Every citizen needs to understand the basics of legal norms. Today we will look at what a crime is in a general sense, how this concept is interpreted by the Criminal Code (CC) of the Russian Federation, what categories and types of crimes are divided into depending on certain factors.
The difference between a crime and an offense
More than one-third of all adult criminal cases involve at least one offense. Canadian adult criminal courts handle a large number of crimes against the course of justice. Although this type of offense accounts for approximately one in every ten police incidents recorded by the police, justice charges are involved in more than one third of adult criminal cases committed.
Over time, the volume of cases involving crimes against the administration of justice has increased compared to criminal cases in general. Failure to comply with charges, which is most common among the administration of justice in court cases. These proportions are consistent with the distribution of these types of offenses reported by the police and have changed little over time.
Crime and delinquency are different concepts
Quite often, citizens do not see much of a difference between the concepts of “crime” and “offense.” An offense means a certain action, the consequence of which is a violation of public order. Such actions include:
- Neglect of certain instructions;
- Causing moral harm to other citizens, or;
- Complete or partial disregard of specific prohibitions.
Each offense is characterized by a certain degree of contradiction to the current provisions of the legislative framework. Committed offenses can be directed both in relation to individual citizens and in the public interest. Offenders pose minimal danger to society.
Cases where failure to comply with an order were among the charges increased by 25%, while the common cold also increased among completed adult criminal cases. Over the same period, no-show cases decreased by almost one-fifth. About half of criminal cases in Manitoba, Yukon and Saskatchewan involved at least one misdemeanor charge. In contrast, adult criminal courts in Quebec and Prince Edward Island reported fewer cases involving this type of offense.
The largest increases during this period were observed in British Columbia and Manitoba. The only province or territory that did not experience a significant increase in the proportion of completed criminal cases that involved at least one misdemeanor was Ontario, where the percentage of such cases increased by less than one percent.
All offenses committed by citizens are considered in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. All punishments used are considered relatively mild. These include:
- Various public works;
- Arrest for a short period of time without a criminal record.
Citizens can be held accountable for committing offenses from the age of fourteen.
The distribution of justice, most often associated with property crimes in criminal courts. Justice costs are often processed by the courts alongside non-violent crimes and may or may not be the most serious crime in the case. Also this year, 20% of cases involving violent crimes also involved charges of crimes against the course of justice.
Findings about guilt common in legitimate cases involving the administration of justice
Various options are available for judges and juries imposing judgments in adult criminal cases. These types of decisions include the results of blame, excuses, charges. This briefing examines immigration offenses in UK immigration and asylum law, as well as trends in legislation and criminal and civil enforcement of offenders. It does not look at data on crimes committed by migrants that are not related to the immigration system itself, such as thefts committed by migrants.
Citizens for crimes committed are determined by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. every crime always has a very close relationship with various forms of property, the personal interests of a particular citizen, a certain constitutional system, established social legal relations, etc.
When considering an action as a crime, the degree of its severity plays a significant role. Citizens can be tried for crimes only after reaching the age of sixteen.
Immigration and asylum laws define immigration offenses through provisions that impose civil or criminal penalties—including imprisonment—for violations of immigration rules. Immigration offenses cover a wide range of activities with wide variations in sanctions. However, “immigration crimes” do not refer to crimes committed by migrants, except in cases directly related to violations of immigration laws. For example, if a migrant commits theft, it is not considered an “immigration crime,” but simply a crime committed by the migrant. Immigration crimes can be committed by both British citizens and non-citizens. Although some offenses related to a person's immigration status can only be committed by persons subject to immigration controls, other offenses can also be committed by British citizens. Violations of immigration laws may carry civil or administrative penalties. They may also be felonies carrying criminal penalties. In some cases, the same incident may be considered a civil or criminal matter. For example, one person arriving in the UK with a false passport may be immediately removed from the country, but another may be prosecuted for possessing a false document if immediate removal is not possible. Depending on the circumstances of the case, law enforcement may deny entry into the country, initiate removal or deportation proceedings, or initiate deportation at a governmental level “promoting the public welfare.” When the violation is also a criminal offense—for example, in the case of illegal entry—criminal prosecution is also a possible enforcement mechanism. If such a charge results in a conviction, it could lead to a recommendation for deportation. Magistrates' courts hear cases involving less serious offenses - 'felonies' or 'whatever' - and judges or district judges can impose sentences of up to six months' imprisonment.
Sun statements on the designated topic
At the meetings of the Supreme Court, it was decided that direct intent is applicable to characterize a situation where it is possible to foresee the chance of consequences occurring (up to 100%). Indirect involves only foreseeing some probability of the result of the actions performed. The person committing an unlawful act can predict that the consequences are inevitable and dangerous for the community - then he is recognized as acting with direct intent.
Eventual foresight, as some legal scholars note, allows us to talk about the possible consequences of an action or lack thereof, while at the same time the approach does not involve consideration of the desirability of the outcome. That is, the actor is assessed as potentially allowing the possibility (up to guaranteed certainty) of consequences without expressing a desire for them to occur.
What are the similarities between crime and delinquency?
Administrative offense: example
For a more detailed consideration of these issues, it is desirable to determine the maximum ratios of crimes committed, as well as administrative offenses. The similarities between these two concepts lie in the following provisions:
In contrast, Coronation Courts hear cases involving more serious offenses - as if they were 'offences' and 'charge-only' crimes - and have the power to impose harsher sentences. Published statistics do not allow further disaggregation of these main categories. A study carried out at Heathrow Airport found that the majority of those accused were accused of entering or leaving with false travel documents or without travel documents, but this may reflect the location and focus of the study rather than a general trend.
- In social significance for the country and;
- The structure of the constituent elements of the current legal norm of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is similar to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
- The illegality of actions and established guilt are considered the main features characteristic of all types of violations;
- When considered with the material component, the object of the offense and the crime will be the same;
- The theory of the developed intersectoral qualification is the objective basis of all types of violations in law enforcement practice.
The functions of the current norms of the criminal and administrative code are designed to regulate, protect and prevent illegal actions. If we relate to the functions, the main of which is considered to be protective (Article 1.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and Article 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), the exclusive feature of the current rules of law in the administrative and criminal code is both in the regulation and in the protection of the subject of the offense, in the form of which Most situations involve meaningful and valuable relationships between citizens.
Moves and departures far outnumber prosecutions of migrants for immigration-related crimes. As shown in Figure 4, criminal proceedings against immigrant offenders remain low compared to administrative actions in the form of forced removals and port refusals. When reading Figure 4, note that the deletion data here does not include voluntary deflections, some of which may be subject to administrative action.
Civil sanctions in the field of transport and education; Both criminal and civil penalties in the area of employment and against landowners. Along with the creation of new categories of criminal offences, civil penalty regimes have been introduced to ensure compliance with immigration rules by employers, organizations and private landowners who have contact with migrants.
It is necessary to have a clear understanding of the existing relationship between the functions of regulation, as well as the protection of the subject of the offense, which call for compliance with the current provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The law enforcement function of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can be implemented in practice using dual methods.
Unstable, unreliable representatives of society are restrained from committing criminal offenses or misdemeanors that could damage certain property or the property of other citizens. In this situation, the current state of legislation will be static in both administrative and criminal matters.
Among these civil penalty regimes, there is a parallel regime of criminal penalties for employers and landlords who violate immigration laws. Employers who hire foreigners without work authorization may face either civil penalties or criminal penalties. Civil penalties may be imposed on employers who act negligently by failing to perform identity checks before hiring someone who has been disqualified from employment due to his or her immigration status.
The system will not operate provided that the legal fact of the offense is absent.
Consequently, the protective capabilities of the system of the most important relationships between citizens are carried out in the course of regulating a special group of interactions that imply certain harm to people that can be caused as a result of the actions of certain individuals. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as well as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, clearly defines educational goals when using punitive measures against violators.
Civil penalties may be reduced in a number of circumstances, including a first offense, prior notification to the Home Office by the employer of suspicions, and partial, albeit incomplete, performance of the employer's duties to check workers' records.
The maximum penalty is 5 years in prison. Colleges and transportation companies are subject only to the civil penalty regime and cannot currently be prosecuted for failing to inform students of violations of immigration laws or for transporting undocumented or clandestine passengers, respectively, although they may be prosecuted for other offenses such as assisting illegal Immigration into a Member State.
The similarity between administrative offenses and crimes lies essentially in the very fact of carrying out activities that go beyond certain norms dictated by the legal consciousness of the socially active population.
Types of intent
There are different types of intent in criminal law:
- According to the psychological component, indirect and direct intent are distinguished.
- According to the term of the crime plan - previously thought out and sudden intent.
- According to the nature of the consequences of the actions taken - specific or non-specific intent.
Direct intent is unlawful. The subject knew about the negative consequences and deliberately committed a violation and wanted it to happen.
Understanding the negative essence of one’s actions and knowing that the consequences will be dangerous for society are human thought processes. At the same time, an understanding is created in the mind that the act is committed intentionally, and the result of these actions is considered a psychological component of the subject’s will.
The danger of one’s actions for society in the mind of the subject characterizes his actual essence. This includes knowledge of the object in relation to which actions are taken. Their essence, as well as the specific setting and conditions in which events occur.
According to current legislation, the characteristic is the unconditional onset of negative consequences for society. To foresee means to know that actions will cause harm to universal human principles that are protected by the current law. The expression of the subject’s will is the desire for negative consequences to arise for society. Thus, intent and its types in criminal law are characterized.
It has several subconscious goals, the desire for which will be expressed for the subject:
- in murder for the purpose of revenge;
- murder to cover up another crime;
- in murder for personal gain.
In the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, this type is aimed at criminal actions expressed in material equivalent. The cause of occurrence is combined exclusively with a danger to society when harm is caused to the victim. A significant part of crimes are committed on formal grounds. In this situation, the purpose is understood to be acts dangerous to society.
For example, a person spreading slander is aware of the actual state of affairs in relation to the object, but deliberately defames the latter.
Thus, a formal sign of criminal actions that fall under the criteria of dangerous, regardless of the circumstances that led to negative consequences.
In Art. 116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, direct intent characterizes the subjective side. A person who breaks the law deliberately wants to repeatedly hit the target of assault, or necessarily cause other physical suffering, being aware of the dangerous nature of his actions for society.
Indirect intent is observed if the subject, knowing about the danger of his actions and consequences, did not want them, but realizing this, allowed them to be committed or did not react at all.
Danger to society is characteristic of both species. However, the onset of negative events for society is different in nature. Here only the possibility of an event is considered, but in no way its inevitability.
The main components of intent are danger to society and the assumption of the occurrence of such consequences. The volitional component is determined not by desire, but by the conscious admission of negative events or indifference to them.
There is no intent:
- when the composition of criminal acts is formal;
- if there is a special purpose;
- in preparation;
- when dangerous consequences are inevitable;
- in the actions of persons who organized, incited and assisted.
Both types of intentional acts are considered almost the same forms of guilt. From the point of view of intelligence, they are determined by the awareness of the danger of actions and the negative fact that they can lead to.
The volitional component that unites these intentions is considered to be approval of negative events for society. However, each of them differs from the other in certain nuances.
Exceptions to the rules
Civil and criminal penalties against employers are increasing
As shown in Figure 5 below, prosecutions and convictions for illegal employment have increased over the past few years, but the numbers still remain below 20 per year in each category.
However, since the introduction of the civil penalty regime, an increasing number of employers have been fined, as shown in the table. Table 2 - Civil penalties issued against employers who employ illegal workers. Note. The figures refer to fines levied at the initial stage of the decision, which may change at the stage of objection or appeal of the decision. Collections are not cohorts, so collection data does not represent payments against fines issued in a particular year.
Both offense and crime are punishable!
There is no criminal liability for operating enterprises and organizations in our country. For illegal actions, legal entities should only be punished. Responsible management employees may be personally involved in judicial proceedings upon initiation of a criminal case.
At the Ministry of Justice. Immigration statistics do not include prosecutions or convictions for possession of false documents. Data on persons imprisoned for these offenses are usually compiled in prison statistics. However, data on individuals convicted of these crimes are grouped under the broad banner of “Fraud and Forgery Charges,” making it difficult to distinguish between immigration-related cases and “ordinary” fraud cases.
Data on civil penalties imposed and collected from employers who employ foreigners without a work permit per year are piecemeal and obtained from the Standard Parliamentary Questions Note. There are no regularly published statistics that systematically collect this data.
Those. In fact, only officials of one or another organization are subject to jurisdiction, and not the enterprises, as a result of whose activities certain damage was caused to citizens. It is also necessary to take into account the possibility of the legislative branch choosing administrative punishment for certain crimes in connection with special circumstances in the country, or some other processes.
Department of Justice - Criminal Justice Statistics Manual Department of Justice -. Crimes of Mobility: Criminal Law and Immigration Regulation. . A violation, sometimes called a misdemeanor, is a violation of an administrative regulation, ordinance, municipal code, and, in some jurisdictions, a state or local traffic code. In many states, the violation is not considered a criminal offense and thus is not punishable by imprisonment.
Instead, such jurisdictions treat violations as civil crimes. Even in those jurisdictions that treat violations as felonies, jail time is not usually considered a punishment, and when it is, the limit is limited to time served in a local jail. As a misdemeanor, violations are often defined in very broad language. For example, one state provides that any crime that is defined "without designation as a felony or misdemeanor or specification of classification or punishment is a misdemeanor."
It should be noted that there is always a possibility that the legislator will make a mistake in the process of assessing the offenses committed. For example, before June 30, 2002, theft could be considered petty when the volume of stolen means of payment was more than 1 minimum wage in accordance with the provisions of Art. 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which came into force on July 1, 2002.
After this, the theft of means of payment in an amount exceeding 5 minimum wages is recognized as petty. In other words, most thefts in the Russian Federation, until recently, were not a reason for initiating criminal cases.
The legislative authorities identified such an error, after which, from the beginning of November 2002, Art. 7.27 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation 5 was replaced by 1. That is the degree of public danger of the theft of a certain amount of money was re-examined several times by government authorities.
If an offense is committed by a legal entity, a significant role is played by the possibility of determining the type of illegality, which is considered a purely formal characteristic. Secondary differences can appear after determining the classification of the offense committed. These include:
- The procedure for bringing violators to justice.
- Types of acceptable punishments.
Consequently, the methods of theft, as well as the size of the stolen amount of means of payment, can determine the attitude towards administratively punishable cases, or towards criminal offenses committed.
However, robbery and robbery will always be considered crimes, even if the damage to the property and health of other citizens is minimal. The offender also needs to be taken into account.
Petty hooliganism can be considered the use of obscene expressions when speaking in public places, disturbing the peace of citizens, or committing some other acts that destabilize order and the measured, calm life of citizens.
Essential features can be identified when considering the so-called formal feature. Punishment for disciplinary violations is determined by established labor law standards. Prisoners, in turn, are subject to the rules of penal law, and to the provisions of the Administrative Code. The head of an organization is authorized to hold people accountable for committing disciplinary violations.
The following video will familiarize you with the signs and types of offenses:
Noticed a mistake? Select it and press Ctrl+Enter
to let us know.
?
THE DIFFERENCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE FROM A CRIME AND A DISCIPLINARY OFFENSE Test on the subject: “Administrative Law”
Introduction
2. Differences between an administrative offense and a crime and a disciplinary offense. Conclusion. List of references.
Introduction. The Russian legal system is protected by three types of punitive sanctions: criminal, administrative and disciplinary. Thus, for violation of electoral law, property rights, labor protection rules, sanitary, environmental standards, depending on specific circumstances, criminal and administrative penalties, as well as disciplinary sanctions, may be applied. The first similarity between these sanctions is that they protect law and order. Secondly, they are established by federal laws. Thirdly, they are applied for guilty illegal actions (offences). Fourthly, the legislation establishes the procedures for applying punitive sanctions and the powers of the entities that have the right to do this. Fifthly, their application to the perpetrator entails unfavorable consequences for him, as well as a state of punishment within the time limits established by federal laws. In a regime of legality, it is very important to distinguish between types of offenses in order to correctly classify specific offenses and legally and reasonably punish the perpetrators. It is precisely these circumstances that dictate the interest in the topic of the presented work, the purpose of which is to analyze the differences between an administrative offense from a crime and a disciplinary offense. This goal is achieved by solving a number of particular problems, namely: 1. give a general description of the administrative offense and its characteristics; 2. give a general description of the concept of crime and disciplinary offense and formulate criteria for comparative analysis; 3. give a comparative analysis of an administrative offense, crime and disciplinary offense.
1. General characteristics of an administrative offense. The legal concept of an administrative offense is enshrined in Part 1 of Art. 2.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. It “recognizes an unlawful, guilty action (inaction) of an individual or legal entity for which administrative liability is established by this Code or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.” This definition is formal, since it contains only the legal characteristics of the act. Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation also included a material sign in the concept of a crime: “socially dangerous act.” The acts mentioned in the articles of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation are prohibited by law because they are socially harmful. This is indirectly stated in Art. 2.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which connects actions with harmful consequences. Unlawfulness is the legal recognition of antisocial behavior that is harmful to citizens, society, and the state. The antisocial nature of crimes is so great that they are recognized as socially dangerous. And the degree of harmfulness of most administrative offenses is small; they are not socially dangerous. So, the first sign of an administrative offense is social nuisance. The second sign is administrative illegality. Such an act is directly prohibited by the articles of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses. It should be remembered that it is a mistake to interpret an administrative offense as a violation of the norms of administrative law, since there are regulatory norms that establish the rules of proper behavior, and protective norms that establish responsibility for violating these rules. The third sign of an administrative offense is an act, i.e. a conscious, volitional action or inaction of one or more people. The fourth sign characterizes the subjects of the offense - this is an act committed by an individual or legal entity. It cannot be committed by an unorganized group of citizens, a complex organization that is not a legal entity (party, financial-industrial group, etc.), a branch or other structural divisions of a legal entity. The fifth sign of an administrative offense is guilt, that is, it is a conscious, volitional act, committed intentionally or carelessly. Art. gives an idea of the forms of guilt when committing an administrative offense. 2.2 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. In accordance with this article: 1. An administrative offense is recognized as committed intentionally if the person who committed it was aware of the illegal nature of his action (inaction), foresaw its harmful consequences and desired the occurrence of such consequences or consciously allowed them or was indifferent to them. 2. An administrative offense is recognized as committed due to negligence if the person who committed it foresaw the possibility of harmful consequences of his action (inaction), but without sufficient grounds, he arrogantly counted on preventing such consequences or did not foresee the possibility of such consequences, although he should have could have foreseen them. In this case, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of “administrative violation” and “administrative offense”. The first reflects only that the norm of administrative law has not been observed and has been violated. But such an act can be committed by a person incompetent, insane, in conditions of extreme necessity, i.e., innocent. A crime is an unlawful, guilty act. In addition, an administrative offense can be not only administrative, but also financial, land and other violations. The sixth sign of an administrative offense is punishability. The possibility of applying administrative penalties is a general property of administrative offenses. In most cases, if a violation is detected, the perpetrator is brought to administrative responsibility. But in a number of cases, punishment cannot be applied (the statute of limitations has expired, the norm has been canceled, etc.). The implementation of administrative sanctions does not necessarily accompany an administrative offense, but the possibility of their application is a mandatory sign of an offense. In Part 2 of Art. 10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the RSFSR, which was called “The Concept of an Administrative Offense,” it was said: “Administrative liability for offenses... occurs if these violations... do not entail... criminal liability.” The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation does not directly name such a sign. But it is indirectly enshrined in paragraph 7 of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, according to which proceedings in a case of an administrative offense cannot be carried out if a criminal case has been initiated against this individual. Thus, to summarize, we can conclude that an administrative offense is characterized by the presence of such features as social harmfulness, illegality, guilt, and punishability; An administrative offense is always a conscious, volitional act, the subject of which can be either an individual or a legal entity.
DIRECTION OF THOUGHT
According to the nature of the direction (degree of certainty) of the subject’s ideas about the most important factual and social properties of the act being committed, intent can be definite (concretized) or vague (unspecified).
Definite
(specific) intent is characterized by the perpetrator having a specific idea about the qualitative and quantitative indicators of the harm caused by the act. If the subject has a clear idea of one individually determined result, the intent is simple determinate.
Alternative
intent is a type of specific intent in which the perpetrator foresees approximately the same possibility of the occurrence of two or more individually determined consequences. Crimes committed with alternative intent should be classified depending on the actual consequences caused. Thus, a person who inflicts a penetrating stab wound to the chest acts with alternative intent if he foresees with equal probability either of two possible consequences: death or serious bodily injury. His actions must be qualified as intentional infliction of those consequences that actually occurred (unless, of course, there was intent specifically to take a life).
Uncertain
(unspecified) intent is characterized by the fact that the perpetrator has not an individually defined, but a generalized idea of the objective properties of the act, that is, he is aware only of its specific characteristics. For example, when delivering strong kicks to the head, chest and stomach, the perpetrator foresees that the result will be harm to the health of the victim, but is not aware of the extent of this harm, that is, the severity of the injuries. Such a crime, as committed with uncertain intent, should be qualified as intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm that actually occurred.
Differences between an administrative offense and a crime and a disciplinary offense.
As noted earlier, the concept of an administrative offense is enshrined in Part 1 of Art. 2.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. This is an unlawful, guilty action (inaction) of an individual or legal entity, for which administrative liability is established by this Code or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses. The concept of crime is contained in Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: 1. A socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment, is recognized as a crime. 2. An action (inaction), although formally containing signs of any act provided for by this Code, but due to its insignificance, does not pose a public danger, is not a crime. In turn, the definition of a disciplinary offense is in Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (legal theory divides all offenses into crimes and misdemeanors. Among the latter, it is customary to distinguish administrative and disciplinary ones. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation uses the following name: “disciplinary offense.” The word “misdemeanor” is more consistent with the provisions of legal theory. But after the adoption of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in other In legal acts, you can only use the name “administrative offense”): a disciplinary offense, that is, failure or improper performance by an employee through his fault of his labor duties. Even a superficial analysis of the above definitions indicates that the primary difference is a social danger and a type of illegality. Of course, first of all, the material criterion is taken into account - the level of harm caused to society. And on the basis of such an assessment, questions about the type of illegality are resolved: criminal, administrative, disciplinary. In the legal literature, there are two opinions about the social danger of offenses. Many scientists believe that all of them are socially dangerous, but crimes are more dangerous and misdemeanors less so. A large group of authors argues for a different approach. They believe that the difference between these offenses is qualitative, not quantitative (more, less dangerous). Crimes are socially dangerous, but misdemeanors are not. The definition of the crime is contained in Part 1 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: “A crime is recognized as a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment.” In Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation says: “An action (inaction), although formally containing signs of any act provided for by this Code, but due to its insignificance does not pose a public danger, is not a crime.” Consequently, a minor act cannot be recognized as a crime, since it is not socially dangerous. Resolving the issue of the insignificance of an act falls within the competence of the investigation and is based on an analysis of the elements of the offense. The debate about whether a misdemeanor can be considered a socially dangerous act has been going on for a long time. However, it is unlikely that it will be possible to reach a common decision if the criteria for a socially dangerous act are not clearly defined. When crossing the street in the wrong place, traveling on a tram without a ticket, failure to fulfill obligations for military registration, registration at the place of residence, etc. are called socially dangerous acts, the question arises: what is social danger? Where are the boundaries of this concept, which covers a range of actions from ticketless travel on a tram to banditry and espionage? I share the point of view of D.N. Bakhrakh that only an act that has caused or is actually capable of causing significant damage to social relations should be considered socially dangerous. Such acts in their totality in a certain historical situation violate the conditions of existence of a given society. From this point of view, most administrative offenses cannot be considered socially dangerous, but only socially harmful. Some scientists generally deny the existence of a public danger in administrative offenses. It seems that they are wrong; some offenses are socially dangerous, although this is an exception to the rule. Misdemeanors, as a rule, do not have the sign of social danger. These are socially harmful acts, and in the legal definition of an offense such a sign as public danger is not mentioned. In Art. 2.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which contains definitions of intent and negligence, speaks of the perpetrator foreseeing “the onset of harmful consequences.” But there are a number of exceptions to the general rule. Firstly, in Russia legal entities are not held criminally liable. If a socially dangerous act is committed through the fault of officials of an organization, the legal entity will be held administratively liable, and the actions of its officials may be a sign of a crime. Secondly, in connection with economic, political and other processes in society, the legislator may come to the conclusion that it is advisable to combat certain socially dangerous acts with the help of administrative rather than criminal penalties. Thirdly, the legislator can change his assessment of certain acts. Thus, until June 30, 2002, theft was considered petty if the amount of the stolen property did not exceed one minimum wage. Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which came into force on July 1, 2002, recognized petty theft in an amount not exceeding five minimum wages. In other words, the bulk of thefts in the Russian Federation have ceased to be criminally punishable, and criminal legal protection of property has been sharply weakened. The legislator discovered this error, and already at the beginning of November 2002 in Art. 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the word “five” was replaced by the word “one” minimum wage (under current legislation, the amount of petty theft is determined in a fixed amount of money - up to 1000 rubles). It can hardly be said that before July 1, 2002, theft in amounts exceeding one to five minimum wages was socially dangerous, from July 1 to November 10 it ceased to be so, and in November 2002 it again became socially dangerous. So, the main difference between a crime and a misdemeanor is the social danger of the act. An additional feature is the type of illegality. This formal sign is especially important when the offense is committed by a legal entity. After the act is classified as a crime or administrative offense, secondary differences appear: the procedure for bringing to justice, types and amounts of punishment, etc. Public danger is a systemic sign of an offense. It arises from the interaction of simple, primary signs of the offense, named in the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the Labor Code of the Russian Federation: the form of guilt, the amount of damage, the method, time, place of the commission of the act, the characteristics of its subject, etc. Therefore, to qualify the act as a crime according to the corresponding article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or as a misdemeanor under the article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to analyze the characteristics of specific offenses. Thus, administratively punishable theft differs from the corresponding crime by such features as the value of the stolen property, the method of theft (robbery and robbery, regardless of the harm caused, are crimes), committed by a group, repeatedly, by a person previously convicted of theft two or more times. A number of criteria that make it possible to determine whether hooligan actions are socially dangerous or not can be identified by comparing the texts of Art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Hooligan actions constitute a crime if they grossly violate public order, express clear disrespect for society, accompanied by the use of violence against citizens or the threat of its use, as well as the destruction or damage of other people's property. Hooliganism is considered petty if it consists of obscene language in public places, offensive harassment of citizens, or the commission of other actions that demonstratively violate public order and the peace of citizens. Article 7.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes the administrative liability of citizens for the intentional destruction or damage of someone else's property. But such actions may also result in criminal liability if they caused significant damage (Part 1 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), were committed in a hooligan manner (Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), or by arson (Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Comparing administrative offenses with disciplinary ones, first of all it should be said that both of them, as a rule, are not socially dangerous. What about, etc……………..
Indirect intent and its features
Indirect intent, being a form of guilt, is considered the exact opposite of negligence. A crime can be recognized as committed by indirect intent if the subject could be fully aware of the danger of his actions (inaction) and could foresee their occurrence in advance, but still consciously allowed them to occur or showed complete indifference to this
There is indirect intent in the illegal actions of the perpetrator when his actions were aimed at achieving another goal not included in the scope of the crime, in other words, the perpetrator did not seek to cause serious consequences. The legislation establishes that even if there is no desire to cause serious consequences, one cannot deny the person’s direct interest in their occurrence and interpret this as a desire to avoid them.
Indirect intent occurs if the perpetrator showed indifference to the occurrence of particularly dangerous consequences. This situation is slightly different from their fully conscious assumption and is characterized by the absence of emotional experiences about the irreversibility of the consequences and the subsequent responsibility for what was done. The subject consciously commits a crime and does not think at all about the consequences as a result of this criminal act, although this situation may seem quite real to him.
Eventual intent
This is an alternative term applicable to indirect in a number of specific cases. At the moment, legal science has already accumulated quite a rich history, including various proposals related to indirect intent. They have spoken more than once about the very difficult division between frivolity and indirect intent. Based on such arguments, proposals were made to exclude indirect intent as such or to combine it with frivolity into one large category, designated “deliberately.”
Modern lawyers are those who adhere to the introduced terminology and insist on the need for urgent reforms of the community. Opinions are divided, and no consensus has been reached on the issue. Many people propose to exclude the concept of indirect intent at the legislative level, since they consider its use inappropriate. In addition, the language specified in the law is somewhat controversial.
Not everything is monotonous
Examples of indirect intent from judicial practice also contain references to such events when the consequences were provoked by the absence of any actions. Moreover, the main character, without any reason, hoped that negative results simply would not occur. On the one hand, the will seems to be aimed at preventing a negative outcome, but hopes and calculations are so abstract that they have no logical explanation or basis. A good term to describe this situation is “at random.”
When analyzing what happened, the court pays special attention to assessing how much the subject of the situation realized that the consequences of the crime could be negative. In conclusion, the judge formulates to what extent the active character was going to prevent the onset of a negative result, and based on such conclusions makes a final decision on the situation
