Фадеев В.И. Основные проблемы реализации конституционной модели местного самоуправления на современном этапе

Аннотация: The article treats the variety of views on action and inaction as crimes typical of Russian criminal law of classical, soviet and modern periods and the way they are stipulated by the corresponding criminal and political situations. Classical crime teaching is represented here as a scheme of theoretical premises. A deed is an infringement on a legal norm possessing certain intrinsic properties. The latter find their expression in action, inaction or combination of the two. Thus action and inaction had been interpreted as juridical forms of criminal deed (juridical action and juridical inaction). At the basis of this system of views lies the notion of a crime as criminal- juridical category. The definition of this notion in the classical Russian criminal law was purely formal and treated legal norm as the object of the crime. Consequently the essence of the deed was linked with infringement upon law (or infringement upon the norm) and entailed differentiation of the juridical content of the forms of deeds. Classical treatment of the notion of crime should differ from its material treatment in the same way as formal definition of crime differs from its material definition. If we start from the premise that “crime” as juridical category has no formal property, then “deed” as an objective part of imputation does not possess any formal juridical features either. Consequently various forms of the “deed” are devoid of their own juridical properties. Russian up-to-date criminal and legal doctrine defines crime as a notion possessing formal and material nature at the same time. Criminal and political meanings of the formal and material definitions differ so much that to form a new criminal-juridical category through their synthesis and coordination is not possible. They are so different that we may even call them antagonistic. Representation of “crime” as a synthetic category possessing formal and material nature at the same time reflect the attempts of scientists to create a new criminal juridical conception different from those underlying the systems of classical and soviet criminal law in Russia. Though Russian criminal law excludes precidential law, the essence of “crime” category remains material which is indicated in the degree of its social danger. Practically modern Russian criminal law does not contain any conceptual foundations which might allow to differentiate juridical content of action and inaction; the latter must be recognized as forms of behaviour determining manifestations of the individual consciousness and will.

Ключевые слова:

Abstract: The article treats the variety of views on action and inaction as crimes typical of Russian criminal law of classical, soviet and modern periods and the way they are stipulated by the corresponding criminal and political situations. Classical crime teaching is represented here as a scheme of theoretical premises. A deed is an infringement on a legal norm possessing certain intrinsic properties. The latter find their expression in action, inaction or combination of the two. Thus action and inaction had been interpreted as juridical forms of criminal deed (juridical action and juridical inaction). At the basis of this system of views lies the notion of a crime as criminal- juridical category. The definition of this notion in the classical Russian criminal law was purely formal and treated legal norm as the object of the crime. Consequently the essence of the deed was linked with infringement upon law (or infringement upon the norm) and entailed differentiation of the juridical content of the forms of deeds. Classical treatment of the notion of crime should differ from its material treatment in the same way as formal definition of crime differs from its material definition. If we start from the premise that “crime” as juridical category has no formal property, then “deed” as an objective part of imputation does not possess any formal juridical features either. Consequently various forms of the “deed” are devoid of their own juridical properties. Russian up-to-date criminal and legal doctrine defines crime as a notion possessing formal and material nature at the same time. Criminal and political meanings of the formal and material definitions differ so much that to form a new criminal-juridical category through their synthesis and coordination is not possible. They are so different that we may even call them antagonistic. Representation of “crime” as a synthetic category possessing formal and material nature at the same time reflect the attempts of scientists to create a new criminal juridical conception different from those underlying the systems of classical and soviet criminal law in Russia. Though Russian criminal law excludes precidential law, the essence of “crime” category remains material which is indicated in the degree of its social danger. Practically modern Russian criminal law does not contain any conceptual foundations which might allow to differentiate juridical content of action and inaction; the latter must be recognized as forms of behaviour determining manifestations of the individual consciousness and will.

Keywords: