The theory of the dangerous condition of person: one step forward or two steps back?

Occupation: senior lecturer of the Department of Criminal Law
Affiliation: the Russian state University of Justice
Address: Moscow, Russian Federation

Alexey Shcherbakov

Occupation: Senior lecturer in criminal law
Affiliation: Russian State University of Justice
Address: 69 Novocheryomushkinskaya St

Journal name

Gosudarstvo i pravo

Edition

Issue 10

Pages

90-99

Abstract

In this article, from the point of view of a critical analysis of the current criminal legislation of Russia, as well as the doctrine of criminal law and criminology, the question arises of the advisability of introducing criminal liability for occupying a higher position in the criminal hierarchy. n the course of the study, attention is drawn to the fact that the formation of the concept of “dangerous state of the person”, in the context of the development of the sociological school of criminal law, meant classifying in this category not only persons who had an objective danger to society (for example, repeat offenders and professional criminals), but persons who had a certain degree of deviation in relation to other representatives of society (for example, drunkards, prostitutes and drug addicts). Moreover, if the intensification of criminal repression against the former was at least somehow justified from the standpoint of the need to prevent serious crimes, the introduction of preventive measures against the second group of people generated exclusively their stigmatization in the eyes of society. When writing an article, the author also refers to foreign experience (primarily USA), which indicates the presence of certain excesses in the establishment of an internal criminal policy in relation to these categories of people: this is also the introduction of the category “dangerous criminal” for persons who have committed sexual offenses in Canada, and the establishment of the three-strikes law in the United States with extreme of it form in the state of California. It is also possible to attribute the expansion of cases of administrative prejudice to the field of establishing the category of a dangerous state of a person in the current criminal law of Russia, which analyzed in this article too. It is concluded that the introduction of criminal liability for the characterization of the person is contrary to the idea of prohibition of objective imputation established in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as in international acts as one of the fundamental principles of modern criminal law.

Keywords

three-strikes law, criminal hierarchy, postmodern, preventive detention, dangerous person

Received

19.12.2019

Publication date

16.11.2020

Number of characters

33991

Cite

GOST	Brilliantov A., Shcherbakov A. The theory of the dangerous condition of person: one step forward or two steps back? // Gosudarstvo i pravo – 2020. – C. 90-99 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://gospravo-journal.ru/S102694520012235-9-1 (circulation date: 26.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S102694520012235-9
MLA	Brilliantov, Aleksander, Shcherbakov, Alexey "The theory of the dangerous condition of person: one step forward or two steps back?." Gosudarstvo i pravo 10 (2020):90-99. DOI: 10.31857/S102694520012235-9
APA	Brilliantov A., Shcherbakov A. (2020). The theory of the dangerous condition of person: one step forward or two steps back?. Gosudarstvo i pravo (10), pp.90-99 DOI: 10.31857/S102694520012235-9

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 1115

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Barabanov N.P. Criminal subculture of inmates in correctional institutions: “thieves in law”, “thieves' groups”, leaders of criminal gangs, “criminal authorities’ (leaders) // Criminal Executive Law. 2015. No. 1 (19). P. 17 - 25 (in Russ).

2. Bezverkhov A.G. Administrative prejudice in the criminal legislation of Russia: sources, realities, prospects // Herald of the Samara Humanitarian Academy. Series: Law. 2011. No. 2. P. 39 – 52 (in Russ.).

3. Belotserkovsky S.D. New Federal Law on Strengthening the Fight against Criminal Communities: Commentary and Problems of Application // Criminal Law. 2010. No. 2. P. 9 – 14 (in Russ).

4. Burlakov V.N., Schepelkov V.F. Crime Boss and the Grounds for Liability: Postmodernism in Criminal Law // Russian Journal of Criminology. Vol. 13. 2019. No. 3. P. 465–476. DOI 10.17150/2500-4255.2019.13(3).465-476 (in Russ).

5. Wolfert A.K. Anthropological Positive School of Criminal Law in Italy: A Critical Study. Release one. Yaroslavl, 1896. P. 375 (in Russ).

6. Yesipov V.V. The personal state of crime as a subject of punishment // Journal of Civil and Criminal Law. Book 10. SPb., 1893. P. 22–50 (in Russ.).

7. Zakrevsky I.P. On the teachings of the criminal-anthropological school. A critical essay. Kharkov, 1896. P. 98, 99 (in Russ.).

8. Kolosova V.I. Administrative prejudice as a means of crime prevention and improvement of criminal law // Herald of UNNSU. 2011. No. 5-1. P. 246 – 254 (in Russ.).

9. Korolev A.S. The fight against criminal authorities in the framework of the new provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (a brief analysis of the changes provided for by the Federal Law of November 3, 2009 No. 245-FL) // Russian investigator. 2010. No. 19. P. 19 – 22 (in Russ.).

10. Nemirovsky E. Ya. Dangerous state of personality and repression // Law and Life. Book 1. M., 1924. P. 3–13 (in Russ.).

11. Piontkovsky A.A. Social protection measures and the Criminal Code of the RSFSR // Soviet Law. 1923. No. 3. P. 12–52 (in Russ.).

12. Safronova E.L., Loba V.E. Dangerous condition of person» as criminal term // Criminology Journal of Baikal National University of Economics and Law. 2014. No. 3. P. 10–17 (in Russ.).

13. Ferry E. Should security measures be put in place of punishment or just complement it / Report of Enrico Ferry; transl. P.I. Lublinskij // Law and Life. Book 1. M., 1927. P. 31–38 (in Russ.).

14. Halitov R.K. Implementation of the principle of justice in norms with administrative prejudice // Herald of SUSU. Series: Law. 2014. No. 2. P. 60–63 (in Russ.).

15. Yunusov A.A., Serkova T.V. Administrative prejudice in the Russian criminal law // Actual problems of economics and law. 2015. No. 1 (33). P. 278 – 282 (in Russ.).

16. Dimock S. Criminal Law, Philosophy (2015) 9: 537.

17. DiCristina, B. (2016). Criminology and the “Essence” of Crime: The Views of Garofalo, Durkheim, and Bonger // International Criminal Justice Review, 26(4), 297–315.

18. Garofalo R. Di un criterio positivo della penalità. Napoli, 1880.

19. Kendall Fisher. No Time Like the Present, Except the Past Fifty Years: Why California Should Finally Adopt the Model Penal Code Sentencing Provisions, 49 U. Pac. L. Rev. 661 (2017).

20. Kieso Douglas W. Unjust Sentencing and the California Three Strikes Law. New York, 2005. P. 27.

21. Robinson P.H. Punishing Dangerousness: Cloaking Preventive Detention as Criminal Justice // Harvard Law Review, 114, No. 5 (2001): 1429 - 456.

22. Schiraldi V., Colburn J. and Lotke R. (2004) Three Strikes and You’re Out: An Examination of the Impact of 3-Strike Laws—10 Years After their Enactment. Justice Policy Institute Policy Brief. Washington, DC.

23. Shepherd J.M. Fear of the First Strike: The Full Deterrent Effect of California’s Two‐ and Three‐Strikes Legislation // The Journal of Legal Studies 31, No. 1 (2002): 159 - 201.

24. Sutton J.R. (2013) Three Strikes and Felony Sentencing // Law & Soc'y Rev, 47: 37 - 72.

25. Trevor Jones, Tim Newburn. Three Strikes and You’re Out: Exploring Symbol and Substance in American and British Crime Control Politics // The British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 46. Issue 5. September 2006. P. 781–802.

26. Tyler T.R. and Boeckmann R.J. Three Strikes and You Are Out, but Why? The Psychology of Public Support for Punishing Rule Breakers // Law & Society Review 31, No. 2 (1997): 237-65. DOI: 10.2307/3053926.

27. van Hamel ‘Report’ / Bulletin de l'union internationale de droit pénal. 1894. Vol 4. pp. 266-267.