employee
Kaliningrad, Kalinigrad, Russian Federation
Introduction. The article notes that the concept of administrative prejudice in the domestic doctrine of criminal law and criminal legislation has been developing for more than a hundred years. All this time, the debate continues about its role, essence and status in the system of criminal legal relations. Currently, there is a large-scale introduction of norms that have administrative prejudice into the current criminal legislation. In addition, the steady trend of growth in the number of people convicted of crimes with administrative prejudice also determines the relevance of the study of this legal mechanism. Methods: general scientific, statistical, logical, historical, comparative legal, systemic and structural. Results: 1. The number of norms with administrative prejudice in the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation exceeds by one third the number of similar articles contained in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1960 (as amended in 1996). 2. At the same time, the very concept, signs and role of administrative prejudice in criminal law are not regulated, but are disclosed in scientific works, resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and recommendations of law enforcement agencies. 3. Our research has shown that when establishing criminal liability for a person with an administrative penalty, the following techniques are used. Firstly, the inclusion in the design features of the crime of “a person subjected to administrative punishment”, secondly, “repeatedness”, and thirdly, “maliciousness”. In all three options there is a reference to the relevant norms of administrative legislation. 4. The analysis of legislation showed inconsistent application of “repeatedness” and “maliciousness” in the structure of the Criminal Code. These features are used in several planes. Firstly, as independent signs of the main composition (Article 154, Article 180, Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), secondly, as a sign of the composition, with administrative prejudice (Part 1 of Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, etc.), thirdly, as a sign of composition, with criminal prejudice, “maliciousness” (Article 314 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), fourthly, the sign of “maliciousness” is used by the legislator in the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (to describe the general provisions related to the institution of punishment: h 5, Article 46, etc.). This state of the criminal law mechanism for regulating the responsibility of persons who have administrative punishment for a similar offense necessitates further research and resolution of the issues we have noted in this area.
Administrative prejudice, repetition, malice, criminal liability, legal regulation
1. Administrative prejudice and prospects for its application at the present stage / Bavsun M. V., Bavsun I. G., Tikhon I. A. // Administrative law and process. - 2008. - N 6. - P. 6-9.
2. Baranova S.A. Repeated violation of the established procedure for organizing or holding a public event: features of the design of the prejudicial composition // Russian investigator. 2021. N 7. P. 30 - 33.
3. Bezverkhov A.G. Return of “administrative prejudice” to the criminal legislation of Russia // Russian Justice. 2012. N 1. P. 48 - 53.
4. Bezverkhov Artur Gennadievich Administrative prejudice in the criminal legislation of Russia: origins, realities, prospects // Bulletin of the Samara Humanitarian Academy. Series: Law. 2011. No. 2. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/administrativnaya-preyuditsialnost-v-ugolovnom-zakonodatelstve-rossii-istoki-realii-perspektivy (date of access: 01/11/2024).
5. Bykova E.G., Kazakov A.A. Legal trap of administrative prejudice in the light of changes in criminal and administrative legislation (using the example of Part 2 of Article 330.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) // Russian Judge. 2023. N 4. P. 32 - 36.
6. Dvoryanskov I.V. Administrative prejudice in criminal law // Penitentiary science. 2023. T. 17, No. 2 (62). pp. 153-162;
7. Kapinus O.S. Administrative prejudice in criminal law: problems of theory and practice // Journal of Russian Law. 2019. N 6. P. 78 - 86.
8. Kapinus O.S. Administrative prejudice in criminal law: Russian and Belarusian experience // Preliminary investigation. 2019. No. 2. P. 36-45.
9. Lopashenko N.A. There is no administrative prejudice in criminal law! // Bulletin of the Academy of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. 2011. No. 3. P. 64-71.
10. Malkov V.P. Repeated offenses and administrative prejudice as a means of criminalization and decriminalization of offenses in Russian criminal law // Scientific notes of the Kazan Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2016. No. 2. P. 185-191.
11. Neznamova Z.A. Crimes with administrative prejudice in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: conflicts of intersectoral regulation // Russian law: education, practice, science. 2015. No. 6. P. 20-25.
12. Sabitov R.A. Administrative prejudice in criminal law: pros and cons // Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. Series: Law. 2019. No. 1. P. 84-89.
13. Sinelshchikov Yu.P. Administrative prejudice in modern criminal proceedings: theory and practice // State and law. 2020. No. 1. P. 86-92.
14. Timoshenko Yu.A. Is a criminal offense with administrative prejudice a crime or an administrative offense? // Russian Journal of Legal Research. 2016. No. 1. P. 214-219.
15. Khilyuta V.V. The phenomenon of administrative prejudice in the context of understanding the essence of a crime // Current problems of state and law. 2021. T. 5. No. 17. P. 117-136.
16. Ergasheva Z.E. Administrative prejudice in criminal law: dissertation ... candidate of legal sciences / Z.E. Ergasheva. Moscow, 2018. 215 p.
