Guest
an analysis of the novelties of the Special Part of the Criminal Code over the past decade shows that the absolute majority of them are special norms, in fact, aimed not at establishing liability for a particular act, but at differentiating responsibility for already prohibited behavior depending on certain features, including characteristics of the subject of a crime. The revealed circumstance raises the question of taking into account of personality traits and their correlation with public danger as the basis for recognizing an act as criminal. Purpose: on considering criminal law, explanatory notes to draft laws, and the theory, to answer the question of taking into account public danger of the individual for the purpose of criminalization. Methods: formal logical and analytical methods, statistical method and interpretation method are used. Results: not only the question of understanding public danger is debatable in science, but also the question of the need to take into account public danger of the individual when determining the danger of an act. The analysis of explanatory notes to draft laws on the introduction of a prohibition in the Special part of the criminal law shows that when proving criminalization of an act, the content of the powers assigned to the person and the need to establish stricter liability are taken into account. This conclusion does not raise objections and, by and large, only confirms the positions expressed in science: if the subject of a crime is special, then public danger of the act increases due to its properties. Let us clarify that this is true for a special subject having an official, professional status, as well as a status arising from a special relationship with the victim. However, the issue remains open for acts with elements of administrative and criminal law prejudice, as well as for Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Conclusion: public danger of the act is recognized as the basis for criminalization, however, the question of whether public danger of the individual is included in its content remains debatable. The analysis of explanatory notes to draft laws, criminal law and theoretical studies allows us to conclude that the legislator obviously focuses attention on the personality of a perpetrator, including by giving his/her personal properties the meaning of a criminalizing element, including the only one. This is the case in acts with elements of administrative and criminal law prejudice, as well as in Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, in general, indicates that the legislator takes into account public danger of a perpetrator due to his/her personal characteristics.
