COUNTERACTING THE RECURRENCE OF MOTOR OFFENCES COMMITTED BY YOUNG CITIZENS: HARMONIZATION OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGICAL APPROACHES

Full Text

 

Vehicles and the entire transport infrastructure have a significant impact on the dynamism and efficiency of socio-economic development of both individual regions and the whole country as a whole. This leads to the improvement of the technical characteristics of vehicles and the modernization of road transport infrastructure, which in turn entails intensive use of vehicles. The demand for vehicles is also promoted by an increase in the welfare of the population and the promotion of high living standards of Russians with a high level of consumption. The latter factor has the greatest impact on young citizens (in accordance with Federal Law No. 489-FZ dated December 30, 2020 "On Youth Policy in the Russian Federation", these are persons from 14 to 35 years old) [1].
Due to the fact that vehicles are sources of increased danger, the safety of transport is provided by criminal law. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) includes Chapter 27, which is devoted to crimes against traffic safety and operation of transport. As of the adoption of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, there were 9 articles in this chapter. During the validity of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, 2 articles were excluded from Chapter 27 and 5 articles were additionally introduced. At the same time, the group of motor vehicle crimes consists of the acts enshrined in art. 2631, 264, 2641, 2642, 266, 267, 2671, 268 The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Although over the past five years there has been a gradual decrease in the number of convictions for motor vehicle crimes, more and more attention is being drawn to them by the State and civil society, both because the number of motor vehicle crimes with a large number of victims is growing, and because the proportion of repeated motor vehicle crimes is increasing. In accordance with the articles of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the multiplicity of crimes, as amended. Federal Law of 08.12.2003 No. 162-FZ, similar crimes cannot be recognized as repeated, in addition, repeated careless crimes and crimes of minors are excluded from the concept of recidivism. Accordingly, official statistics do not reflect cases of repeated traffic accidents, including those involving young citizens. Nevertheless, the fact that there are many cases of repeated traffic accidents is confirmed by the introduction of articles in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in which the actual repetition of acts is recognized as a sign of the corpus delicti. This is art . 2641 "Driving a vehicle in a state of intoxication by a person subjected to administrative punishment or having a criminal record" and Article 2642 "Violation of traffic rules by a person subjected to administrative punishment and deprived of the right to drive vehicles".
The crime under Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has become the most common motor vehicle crime. According to the official statistics of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in the period from 2017 to the first half of the year 2,021 years. Inclusive, according to Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, 72,018 people were convicted in 2017, 66,287 people in 2018, 59,543 people in 2019, 57,731 people in 2020, 28,033 people in the first half of 2021. In 2020, the proportion of persons committing crimes qualified under Article art. 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, accounted for 88% of the total number of crimes against traffic safety and operation of transport. Based on the analysis of the above data, it can be concluded that the increase in the commission of repeated crimes provided for in Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the ineffectiveness of the current norms of criminal legislation [2].
Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for such alternative types of punishment as: fine, compulsory labor, forced labor, imprisonment; at the same time, additional punishment provides for deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities. This list, in our opinion, is insufficient. In order to counteract the recurrence of motor vehicle crimes, we consider it expedient to introduce the confiscation of the vehicle driven by the guilty person into the sanction as the main alternative punishment. To do this, it is necessary to make appropriate changes to the articles of Chapter 9 of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on punishment.
It should be noted that in the period from 2015 to 2016, as part of the consideration of cases of a crime under Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the courts decided to confiscate the vehicle. However, subsequently, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in its decision No. 22301 of May 24, 2016, clarified that for the purposes of applying the institution of confiscation, a vehicle cannot be recognized as an instrument, equipment or other means of committing a crime under Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [3, pp.168-169].
Proceeding from the provisions of paragraph 103 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09.12.2008 No. 25 "On judicial practice in cases of crimes related to violation of traffic rules and operation of vehicles, as well as their unlawful seizure without the purpose of theft", the conviction of a person under art. 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation occurs if, at the time of driving a vehicle in a state of intoxication, the driver is a person subjected to administrative punishment under part 1 or 3 of Article 12.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation for driving a vehicle in a state of intoxication or under Article 12.26 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation for failure to comply with the legal requirement of an authorized official to undergo a medical examination for intoxication or has a criminal record for committing a crime under parts 2, 4 or 6 of Article 264 or Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the person being held liable may meet both one of these conditions and their totality. Consequently, this norm does not suspend or interrupt the period during which a person is considered to have been subjected to administrative punishment [4].
This position of the Supreme Court is confirmed by judicial practice. Thus, by the Decree of the Presidium of the Court of the German Autonomous Okrug No. 44U-1/2018 dated 17.01.2018, A. was convicted under Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (according to the episode of June 28, 2017), under Article 2641 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (according to the episode of July 7, 2017), on the basis of Part 2 of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the totality of crimes, to 1 year 2 months in a high-security penal colony with deprivation of the right to engage in vehicle management activities for 3 years. In the cassation submission, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation expressed disagreement with the fact that A. forms the compositions of two independent crimes, for each of which he must be held responsible, paying attention to the fact that at the time of A. driving a mechanical vehicle both on June 28 and July 7, 2017, he was considered a person subjected to administrative punishment for driving a vehicle in a state of intoxication [5].
Based on the materials of the case, in the cassation submission, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation expressed disagreement with the decision of the Presidium of the court that what A. had done constituted two separate crimes, for each of which he should be held responsible, drawing attention to the fact that at the time of A. driving a motor vehicle both on June 28 and July 7, 2017 G. he was considered a person subjected to administrative punishment for driving a vehicle in a state of intoxication, what he did forms the components of two independent crimes, for each of which he must be responsible. Thus, establishing criminal liability for repeated commission by a person of homogeneous (similar) offenses, as indicated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 2-P of February 10, 2017 "In the case of checking the constitutionality of the provisions of art. 212.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of citizen D.", the repeated commission of such offenses objectively testifies to the insufficiency of the available administrative and legal means for effective counteraction to such acts [6]. Thus, it can be concluded that bringing a person to administrative responsibility and imposing administrative punishment under Part 1 or Part 3 of Article 12.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation or under Article 12.26 The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is not the basis of criminal liability, but its condition, since the commission of these offenses in itself is not criminally punishable and entails administrative responsibility.
It seems that the emphasis on the application of criminal law in the modern criminal policy of countering mass crimes is excessive. It is necessary to coordinate criminal-legal and criminological means of influencing crime with an understanding of the priority of the latter. The choice of appropriate means and the determination of priorities should be carried out on the basis of an analysis of the identity of the perpetrators of transport crimes (primarily age and ideological characteristics), the circumstances of these crimes ("sober" or "drunk" crime) and the conditions conducive to their commission. The latter include, for example, improper maintenance of roads, deficiencies in the design of the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle), errors in the choice of traffic control mode and technical means (the number and nature of installed road signs, transport razvzka), the influence of external environmental factors, congestion of vehicle roads, improper behavior of pedestrians, low level of qualification and training drivers, gaps in legislative regulation in matters of countering the commission of motor vehicle crimes in general.

 

About the authors

Yulia Grebentsova

Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education
"Samara National Research University named after Academician S.P. Korolev"

Author for correspondence.
Email: yulyagrebentsova@yandex.ru

student

Russian Federation, Moskovskoe sh., 34, Samara, Samara region, 443086

Darya Maksimovna Gudkova

Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education
"Samara National Research University named after Academician S.P. Korolev"

Email: gudkova_darina@mail.ru

student

Russian Federation, Moskovskoe sh., 34, Samara, Samara region, 443086

References

Supplementary files