On the question of the model of criminalization of actions

: 364-367

Marysyuk K. On the question of the model of criminalization of actions.

Lviv Polytechnic National University, Institute of Jurisprudence and Psychology

The article is devoted to the analysis of the main models of criminalization of acts.

Based on the principles and grounds of criminalization (decriminalization), the legislature creates a new criminal law (or, conversely, changes or repeals the existing one). At the same time, preliminary models of the new norm are being developed, which must meet different, sometimes contradictory requirements.

Of course, when creating such models it is necessary to resolve a number of issues related to the scope and content of the disposition of the new rule, its sanctions, the relationship with current criminal, criminal procedure, correctional labor legislation.

Having formulated contradictory requirements to the criminal law norm as two opposite poles, the interval in which the best solution should be found will be between them, the so-called optimal norm will be created.

The author notes that a solution can be found that meets both conflicting requirements, for example, by creating two or more interconnected institutions. Thus, considering the basis of criminal liability is the act itself, we construct the composition of the crime, where the identity of the offender is reflected only by some formal features. The existence of a corpus delicti is a necessary and sufficient ground for finding a person guilty and bringing him to criminal responsibility for the commission, but it is by no means sufficient for him to choose the appropriate measure of responsibility. At the same time, the institution of punishment in the first place is the identity of the offender. As a last resort, it should act if the main purpose of punishment is to correct and re-educate offenders. This compensates for the one-sidedness of the act as a basis for liability.

In other cases, conflicting requirements cannot be separated because they relate to the same institution, to the same issue. At the same time, it is impossible to find a solution that meets both opposite requirements at the same time. Thus, the disposition of the criminal law can not be both abstract and casuistic, the sanction - at the same time and severe and lenient. Obviously, the decision must be between these extremes: for example, the sanction must be moderately severe.

One of the main conditions for the optimality of legislation is reduced to compliance with the requirements of its internal coherence, as well as a number of related requirements: the absence of gaps in the law and the prohibition of prohibition; certainty and unity of terminology. If the interpretation of the meaning or significance of a term contained in a legal act may be difficult for its addressee, it is advisable to provide a legal definition of such a term, even if it leads to an increase in the text; expediency - the possibility of creating, amending and subsequently applying the provisions of criminal law, based on the needs of society and the state, to achieve certain goals, taking into account general legal principles within clearly defined legal limits, manifested in the construction of criminal law, determining their structure in the criminal law itself and establishing a relationship with other provisions of the Criminal Code.

1. Kudryavtsev V. (1982). Osnovaniya ugolovno-pravovogo zapreta (krimynalizatsyia i dekriminalizatsiya) [Grounds forcriminal prohibition (criminalization and decriminalization)].M. : Nauka, 304 p. 

2. Tkachuk A. (2002). Zakonodavcha tekhnika: praktychnyy posibnyk [Legislative technique]. K. : Instytut hromadsʹkoho suspilʹstva, 268 p. 

3. Hotin O. (2005). Pidstavy kryminalizatsiyi diyanʹ [Grounds for criminalization of acts]. Pravo Ukrayiny. №2. Pp. 95-99.