Kursk, Russian Federation
Kursk, Russian Federation
UDK 316.6 Социальная психология
The issue of free will and the violence opposing it is of scientific interest for philosophers, psychologists, lawyers. Manipulation is a category related to violence, and it has mainly deserved a scientific explanation either as a method of social management in sociology and philosophy, or as a method of interaction between the state and society in political science. Lawyers have shown less interest in it. The expansion of «information warfare», the establishment of criminal liability for «fakes» under art. 2071, 2072 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation made a legal understanding of these categories particularly relevant. The purpose of this study is an attempt to «implement» achievements in the field of philosophy, psychology, political science into the canvas of modern criminal law to develop a functioning definition of the coercion, manipulation, responsibility, and their relationship with free will as the basic category of all normative legal acts. Therefore, the novelty of the presented research lies in the very formulation of the question. The methodological basis of the research if the system-functional and existential-phenomenological method and the experimental method. Novelty. Criminal law studies have not been conducted before through the lens of the correlation of free will, coercion and manipulation. Results. Freedom of will in criminal law is the possibility of choosing a certain behavior, whether coercion or manipulation opposes it. It is important to understand that there can be no categories of semi-freedom in law, free will is postulated, it acts as a kind of legal fiction, axiom, hypothesis. Therefore, the emphasis shifts to the establishment of responsibility, based on the premise that the subject had sufficient free will, which is opposed either by coercion or manipulation. The latter can only act as a way of committing a crime. Coercion and manipulation in criminal law have the same structural elements, therefore, the analysis of the phenomenon of «manipulation» in criminal law is constructed through a similar category of «coercion», which has a developed conceptual and methodological apparatus. Practical significance. The results of the study offer a new approach to solving a number of practical problems related to the conceptual apparatus of the criminal law. The conclusions of the work can become a theoretical basis for the practical activities of lawyers practicing «risk-oriented approaches» in criminal law.
free will, coercion, responsibility, manipulation, criminal law
1. Alekseev, M. V., Boycov, A. S., Vasil'chenko, Yu. V., Grigor'ev i dr. (2016). Kommentariy k Federal'nomu zakonu ot 3 dekabrya 2008 g. N 242-FZ «O gosudarstvennoy genomnoy registracii v Rossiyskoy Federacii» (postateynyy) (otv. red. E.N. Holopova).
2. Ansel', M. (1970). Novaya social'naya zaschita (gumanisticheskoe dvizhenie v ugolovnoy politike). Moskva: Progress.
3. Antonova, E. Yu. (2016). Svoboda voli i ee vliyanie na sub'ektivnuyu storonu sostava prestupleniya. Vestnik Habarovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta ekonomiki i prava, 2(82), 62-67.
4. Baryshkov, V. P. (2010). Makiavellizm i stratagemnost' kak sposoby politicheskoy i povsednevnoy deyatel'nosti. Izv. Sarat. un-ta Nov. ser. Ser. Sociologiya. Politologiya, 1.
5. Besedin, A. P. (2019). Svoboda voli Dmitriya Volkova. Recenziya na knigu Dmitriya Volkova «Svoboda voli. Illyuziya ili vozmozhnost'». Finikovyy Kompot, 14.
6. Branickiy, I. (2022). Svobody voli ne suschestvuet»: avtor «Biologii dobra i zla» Robert Sapol'ski - o vakcine ot stressa, petle degradacii i prirode diktatorov. Polucheno iz https://www.forbes.ru (data obrascheniya 17.02.2022).
7. Budnikov, M. Yu. (2018). Hranitel' vremeni: k 85-letiyu Filipa Zimbardo. Medicinskaya psihologiya v Rossii, 2(49).
8. Volkov, A. V. (2010). Svoboda voli v grazhdanskom prave. YuP, 5.
9. Volkov, D. (2018). Svoboda voli. Illyuziya ili vozmozhnost'. Moskva: Kar'era Press.
10. Gegel', G. V. F. (1935). Sobranie sochineniy v 14-ti tomah. Moskva, Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe social'no-ekonomicheskoe izdatel'stvo (Socekgiz), T. 8. Filosofiya istorii.
11. Gurin, D. V. (2014). Pravo gosudarstva na ugolovnoe nakazanie: sub'ektivnoe soderzhanie i formy ob'ektivacii. Biblioteka kriminalista. Nauchnyy zhurnal, 6, 32-52.
12. Dikarev, I. S. (2008). Princip dispozitivnosti v ugolovnom processe Rossii. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, 6, 74-80.
13. Zhabina, A. (2020). Ataka klonov: ot eksperimentov k biznesu. Ekspert, 11 (1155), 60-61.
14. Zimbardo, F. (2018). Effekt Lyucifera. Pochemu horoshie lyudi prevraschayutsya v zlodeev. Moskva: Al'pina no-fiksh.
15. Zor'kin, V. D. (2009). Prava cheloveka v kontekste global'noy yurisprudencii. Zhurnal konstitucionnogo pravosudiya, 2, 8-12.
16. Kapinus, O. S., Dodonov, V. N. (2008). Otvetstvennost' za klonirovanie cheloveka v sovremennom ugolovnom prave Sovremennoe ugolovnoe pravo v Rossii i za rubezhom: nekotorye problemy otvetstvennosti: sbornik statey (str. 147 - 159). Moskva: Bukvoved.
17. Kara-Murza, S. G. (2000). Manipulyaciya soznaniem (str. 14-16). Moskva: Algoritm.
18. Knyazeva, I. V. (2011). Manipulyaciya obschestvennym soznaniem: suschnost', istoricheskie formy, transformaciya: social'no-filosofskiy analiz: dis. … kand. filosof. nauk. Voronezh.
19. Kovalev, M. I. (1996). Pravovye problemy zaschity zhizni, zdorov'ya i geneticheskogo dostoinstva cheloveka. Ekaterinburg: UrGYuA.
20. Kozaev, N. Sh. (2017). Mezhdunarodnye standarty primeneniya sovremennyh biotehnologiy i ih vliyanie na ugolovnoe pravo Rossii. Yuridicheskiy vestnik DGU, 22, 2, 71-75. doi:https://doi.org/10.21779/2224-0241-2017-22-2-71-75
21. Kozachenko, I. Ya. (2019). Podvlastno li ugolovnoe pravo genetike? (neprostye otvety na slozhnye voprosy). Vestnik Kuzbasskogo instituta, 3(40), 29-41.
22. Krasavchikov, O. A. (1970). Dispozitivnost' v grazhdansko-pravovom regulirovanii. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1, 62-68.
23. Kuldell, N., Bernshteyn, R., Ingrem, K., Hart, K. M. (2019). Na puti k sinteticheskoy biologii. DMK Press.
24. Lange, O. V. (2015). Sovremennye manipulyativnye tehnologii: voprosy teorii i metodologii: dis. … kand. polit. nauk. Sankt-Peterburg.
25. Mey, R. (1997). Lyubov' i volya. Moskva.
26. Navasartyan, L. G. (2017). Yazykovye sredstva i rechevye priemy manipulyacii informaciey v SMI (na materiale rossiyskih gazet): dis. …kand. filolog. nauk. Saratov.
27. Negodaeva, O. B. (2008). Manipulyaciya soznaniem kak faktor riska v rossiyskom obschestve: dis. … kand. filosof. nauk. Rostov-na-Donu.
28. Platon (2008). Dialogi. Kniga vtoraya (per. V.N. Karpov). Moskva: Azbuka-klassika.
29. Nikitskaya, N. S. (2014). Manipulyativnye strategii v sovremennoy rossiyskoy biznes-srede (na primere malogo biznesa): dis. … kand. psihol. nauk. Yaroslavl'.
30. Perebum, D. (2016). Optimistichnyy skepticizm otnositel'no svobody voli. Logos, 5, 59-99.
31. Petrakova, A. S. (2014). Social'no-filosofskiy analiz transformacii soznaniya lichnosti sredstvami manipulyativnogo vozdeystviya: avtoref. dis. … kand. filosof. nauk. Krasnodar.
32. Politova, I. P. (2014). Kategoriya voli v grazhdanskom prave Rossii: avtoref. dis.… kand. yurid. nauk. Moskva.
33. Prins, A. (1912). Zaschita obschestva i preobrazovanie ugolovnogo prava (per. s fr. E. Markelovoy; pod red. i s predisl. G.S. Fel'dshteyna). Moskva.
34. Senina, Yu. L. (2006). Kategoriya voli v grazhdanskom prave Rossii (v aspekte grazhdansko-pravovoy sdelki: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. Tomsk.
35. Sergeev, D. N. (2019). Otvetstvennost' za manipulyacii s genomom cheloveka (delo He Czyan'kuya). Elektronnoe prilozhenie k Rossiyskomu yuridicheskomu zhurnalu, 5, 5-13.
36. Sidorenko, E. L. (2013). Dispozitivnost' kak rezhim ugolovno-pravovogo regulirovaniya: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. Moskva.
37. Sirazetdinova, M. F. (2016). Manipulyaciya soznaniem: social'no-filosofskiy analiz: avtoref. dis. …kand. filosof. nauk. Ufa.
38. Stasevich, K. Pochemu my ubivaem po prikazu. Nauka i zhizn'. (22.02.2016). Polucheno iz https://www.nkj.ru/news/28223/ (data obrascheniya 17.02.2022)
39. Stroganov, V. B. (2019). Tehnologii politicheskoy manipulyacii v internete: dis. … kand. polit. nauk. Ekaterinburg.
40. Sumachev, A. V. (2006). Dispozitivnost' v ugolovnom prave: teoretiko-prikladnoy analiz: avtoref. … dis. dokt. yurid. nauk. Ekaterinburg.
41. Syrov, V. N. (2019). Diskussiya o svobode voli i moral'noy otvetstvennosti: gde perspektivy? Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sociologiya. Politologiya, 51, 88-97. doi:https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/51/9
42. Sundurova, F. R., Tarhanova, I. A. (2009). Ugolovnoe pravo Rossii. Obschaya chast' (3-e izd., pererab. i dop.). Moskva.
43. Uord, L. (2003). Psihicheskie faktory civilizacii. Sankt-Peterburg: Piter.
44. Ferri, E. (2005). Ugolovnaya sociologiya (sost. i predisl. V. S. Ovchinskogo). Moskva.
45. Fil'chenko, A. P. (2012). Filosofsko-yuridicheskie osnovaniya opredeleniya momenta vozniknoveniya otnosheniya ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kul'turologiya i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 11(2), 185-187.
46. Harris, S. (2015). Svoboda voli, kotoroy ne suschestvuet. Moskva: Al'pina Pablisher.
47. Hilyuta, V. V. (2021). Svoboda voli i ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' v fokuse novyh otkrytiy neyrobiologii. Pravo.by, 6(74), 45-51.
48. Shargorodskiy, M. D. (2003). Izbrannye raboty po ugolovnomu pravu (sost. i predisl. B.V. Volzhenkina). Sankt-Peterburg.
49. Sheveleva, S. V. (2015). Svoboda voli i prinuzhdenie v ugolovnom prave: dis. … dokt. yurid. nauk. Kursk.
50. Shostrom, E. (2008). Chelovek manipulyator. Vnutrennee puteshestvie ot manipulyacii k aktualizacii. Moskva: Izd-vo Instituta Psihoterapii.
51. Yurenkov, V. V. (2013). Manipulyaciya kak social'no-filosofskoe yavlenie. Teoriya i praktika obschestvennogo razvitiya, 4.
52. Alonso, M., Savulescu, J. (2021). He Jiankui´s gene-editing experiment and the non-identity problem. Bioethics, 35(6), 563-573.
53. Balistreri, M., Hansen, S. L. (2019). Moral and Fictional Discourses on Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Current Responses, Future Scenarios. NanoEthics, 13(3), 199-207.
54. Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., Dewall, C. N. (2009). Prosocial Benefits of Feeling Free: Disbelief in Free Will Increases Aggression and Reduces Helpfulness. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(2), 260-268.
55. Bowman-Smart, H. (2021). Orphans By Design: The Future Of Genetic Parenthood. Bioethics, 35(1), 23-30.
56. Goding, V., Tranter, K. (2021). ‘The machine runs itself’: law is technology and Australian embryo and human cloning law. Griffith Law Review, 30(2), 240-269.
57. Gruijters, S. L. K. (2022). Making inferential leaps: Manipulation checks and the road towards strong inference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98,104251.
58. Haney, C., Banks C., Zimbardo, P. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Review, 9, 1-17.
59. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology[en], 67, 371-376.
60. Mills, P., Chen, Q., Ma, Y. et al. (2021). Making sense of it all: Ethical reflections on the conditions surrounding the first genome-edited babies. Wellcome Open Research, 5, 216.
61. Rigoni, D., Kühn, S. et al. (2012). Reducing Self-Control by Weakening Belief in Free Will. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1482-1490.
62. Sanak-Kosmowska, K., Wiktor, J. W. (2020). Empirical identification of latent classes in the assessment of information asymmetry and manipulation in online advertising. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(20), 8693, 1-17.
63. Smiley, M. (1992). Moral responsibility and the boundaries of community: power and accountability from a pragmatic point of view. The University of Chicago, 256.
64. Song, L., Joly, Y., (2021). After He Jianku: China’s biotechnology regulation reforms. Medical Law International, 21(2), 174-192.
65. Swazo, N. K. (2020). Doing wrong to ‘lulu’ and ‘nana’? Applying parfit to the he jiankui experiment. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(1), 157-170.
66. Vohs, K., Schooler, J. (2008). The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating. Psychological Science, 19(1), 49-54.
