UDC 343.21
Introduction. The article examines the dynamic nature of criminal liability and the role of data on a perpetrator of a crime in the process of its implementation. Three key stages of its development are identified: establishment, bringing to responsibility and implementation of criminal liability. It is emphasised that the volume and significance of information about a criminal reach their maximum at the final stage. Methods. The study used methods such as analysis, synthesis, generalisation, formal legal analysis, as well as the method of interpreting legal norms and a number of other documents. Results. The study of the functional relationship between data on a person who committed a crime and the system of criminal law measures led to the following conclusions: a) criminal law measures constitute a system of measures that can only be applied within the framework of criminal liability, and therefore exemption from criminal liability cannot be considered part of the system of criminal law measures; it represents the state’s refusal to enforce liability; b) with regard to a person who has committed a crime and who continues to pose a criminal threat, the following criminal law measures may be applied: punishment, suspended sentence, exemption from punishment in connection with a change in circumstances, deferral of punishment, deferral of serving a sentence for a drug addict, exemption from punishment with the application of educational measures or placement of a minor to a special custodial institution; c) data on the personality of a person who committed a crime reflect a wide range of his negative and positive characteristics, among which indicators of the level of public danger are leading in deciding on the need to implement criminal liability and on the choice of the form of its implementation.
a person who committed a crime, criminal responsibility, measures of criminal responsibility, differentiation of criminal responsibility, measures of a criminal law nature, punishment, exemption from punishment
1. Antonyan Yu. M., Kudryavcev V. N., Eminov V. E. Lichnost' prestupnika. Sankt-Peterburg : Yuridicheskiy centr Press, 2004. 364 s.
2. Vardanyan A. V. Sub'ekt prestupleniya i lichnost' prestupnika kak mezhdisciplinarnye kategorii ugolovno-pravovyh nauk: voprosy sootnosheniya i integracii // Kriminologicheskiy zhurnal Baykal'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta ekonomiki i prava. 2016. T. 10, № 2. S. 244–251. https://doi.org/10.17150/1996-7756.2016.10(2).244-251
3. Burlakov V. N. Ugolovnoe pravo i lichnost' prestupnika. Sankt-Peterburg : Izdatel'skiy dom Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2006. 238 s.
4. Ivinskaya D. S. Formal'no-dogmaticheskiy podhod k razgranicheniyu ponyatiy «lichnost' prestupnika», «sub'ekt prestupleniya», «lichnost' vinovnogo», «lichnost' obvinyaemogo» / Sovremennye problemy yuridicheskoy nauki i pravoprimenitel'noy praktiki : sbornik nauchnyh trudov / pod obsch. red. O. A. Zayachkovskogo. Kaliningrad : Baltiyskiy federal'nyy universitet imeni Immanuila Kanta, 2018. S. 229–235.
5. Tkachevskiy Yu. M. Rossiyskaya progressivnaya sistema ispolneniya ugolovnyh nakazaniy. Moskva : Gorodec, 2007. 237 s.
6. Zvecharovskiy I. E. Ponyatie mer ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera // Zakonnost'. 2007. № 1 (867). S. 19–21.
7. Zvecharovskiy I. E. Esche raz o merah ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera // Zakon i pravo. 2023. № 7. S. 171–175.
8. Nepomnyaschaya T. V. Inye mery ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera: ponyatie, yuridicheskaya priroda, sistema // Pravoprimenenie. 2017.T. 1, № 1. S. 114–121. https://doi.org/10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(1).114-121
9. Andrianov V. K., Lapshin V. F., Pudovochkin Yu. E., Tolkachenko A. A. Mery ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera : monografiya / pod red.Yu. E. Pudovochkina. Moskva : Biblioteka rossiyskogo sud'i (RGUP), 2022. 608 s.
10. Pudovochkin Yu. E. Mery ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera i ugolovnaya otvetstvennost': nauchnaya diskussiya i poisk resheniya // Penitenciarnaya nauka. 2020. T. 14, № 4 (52). S. 460–472. https://doi.org/10.46741/2686-9764-2020-14-4-460-472
11. Krylova N. E. «Inye» mery ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera v zakonoproekte Verhovnogo Suda RF ob ugolovnom prostupke // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11: Pravo. 2021. № 1. S. 3–20.
12. Gareev M. F. Ugolovno-pravovoe vozdeystvie i ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' // Yuridicheskaya mysl'. 2021. № 4 (124). S. 154–169. https://doi.org/10.47905/MATGIP.2021.124.4.012
13. Provodina E. V. Social'noe prednaznachenie inyh mer ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera // Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. 2016. № 6 (113). S. 156–160.
14. Lesnievski-Kostareva T. A. Differenciaciya ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti : Teoriya i zakonodatel'naya praktika : [monografiya]. Moskva : Norma, 1998. 287 s.
15. Suhareva N. D. Obscheugolovnoe osvobozhdenie ot otvetstvennosti v rossiyskom ugolovnom prave : monografiya / nauch. red. A. V. Naumov. Moskva : Ileksa, 2005. 261 s.
16. Endol'ceva A. V. Institut osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti. Problemy i puti ih resheniya : monografiya. Moskva : YuNITI, 2004. 231s.
17. Filimonov V. D. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' po rossiyskomu zakonodatel'stvu. Moskva : Institut Aktual'nogo obrazovaniya «YurInfoR-MGU», 2008. 249 s.
18. Schedrin N. V., Nikitina N. A. O pravovoy prirode i perspektivah instituta osvobozhdeniya s primeneniem prinuditel'nyh mer vospitatel'nogo vozdeystviya // Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava. 2013. № 8 (33). S. 1007–1011.
19. Yani P. S. Naznachenie sudebnogo shtrafa kak obyazannost' suda // Zakonnost'. 2021. № 7. S. 27–31.
20. Blagov E. V. Osvobozhdenie ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti (razmyshleniya o problemah i ih preodolenii) : monografiya. Moskva : Yurlitinform, 2018. 224 s.
