CC BY
100
Section 13. Science of law
Ashin Andrei Aleksandrovich, Vladimir State University named after Alexander and Nikolay Stoletovs Ph. D., assistant professor of the Department of Criminal Law
and Procedure of the Law Institute E-mail: andrey09122004@mail.ru Borisova Alexandrа Alexandrovna, Vladimir State University named after Alexander and Nikolay Stoletovs, student, Law Institute E-mail: alexandra.borisova1992@yandex.ru
The problems of qualification of a newborn child murder by his mother
Abstract: The article is devoted to the controversial issue of qualification of mother’s actions as a special subject committing a newborn child murder and the ways of the decision of this problem
Key words: criminal-law protection of human life, problems of qualification of a Newborn Child Murder by his Mother.
The safety of personality is the priority direction of criminal and legal policy in Russia. At the same time, the criminal legislation putting life and health of the citizens in the forefront establishes unreasonably soft punishment for a newborn child murder by his mother that doesn’t correspond to modern conditions of the Russian reality at all.
The separate crime structure providing liability for a newborn child murder by his mother for the first time was allocated in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996. Till the specified moment this act was considered as a simple or a qualified murder.
The regulation of the liability for infanticide has an ambiguous character abroad. So criminal legislation of England, Canada, Austria, Lithuania [1], Poland, Ukraine [2], Switzerland, Australia [3, 55-56] refers newborn child murder by his mother to the crimes with exclusive structure. A number of countries which had historical experience of application of the specified norm (Germany, a number of states in the USA, Spain, China [4], Japan [5], France) have refused it now and referred the specified act to a simple type of murder [6, 16]. It seems that thereby the criminal legislator of the called countries has pursued the aim to equal the value of human life and of the one of a newborn child.
Let’s consider debatable questions of qualification of mother’s actions as the special subject committing a newborn child murder.
One of the controversial questions in the theory of criminal law is the subject structure of infanticide. The liability according to Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation comes from 16-year age. Criminological researches in their turn testify to a tendency of rejuvenation of crime of minors. According to this, a question of criminal liability of the women who haven’t
reached 16-year age appeares in practice. Thus, the position of the legislator who puts the newborn’s value of life below the adult’s one establishing liability for simple murder from 14-year age is unclear. There are various points of view concerning a being of the matter in the theory of criminal law. According to S. M. Milyukov the legislator handicapped 14-15-year-old murderers’ situation extremely in comparison with more senior but full age people (In Russia young people who have reached the age of 18 are considered full age people) by such decision. Milyukov comes to such a conclusion because he considers it necessary to bring the minors who haven’t reached the age of 16 years to trial under the article providing liability for a simple murder (Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) [7, 111-112]. E. B. Kurguzkina is of the similar opinion considering that the person who hasn’t reached the age of 16 bears liability according to the general norm [6, 189]. S. V. Tasakov, A. N. Krasikov, L. I. Murzina adhere to the opposite point of view. The specified group of authors considers that the mother who hasn’t reached the age of 16 isn’t the subject of criminal liability. Thus L. I. Murzina motivates her point of view with the idea that the criminal prosecution of people who haven’t reached the age of16 is unfair because only a mature person possessing at least the minimum life experience can make a correct decision. Besides, cases of childbirth occur extremely seldom at this age as for girls are under control by various institutions of socialization (a family, a school) [7, 111-112]. L. I. Murzina’s point of view doesn’t seem to be reasonable as first the concept of a mature person has an estimated character and secondly statistical data testify to decrease the age of criminal liability also according to Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
270
Секция 13. Юриспруденция
The question concerning the age of the subject of criminal liability for a newborn child murder is resolved ambiguously abroad. The criminal legislation of Ukraine [2] and the People’s Republic of China [4] establish the lowest age bracket — 14 years, in France — 13 [8]. In general the responsibility varies from 12 to 18 years. However, without pressing in discussion about the decrease of the age of criminal liability in general it should be noted that the legislator of Ukraine despite the reference of the newborn child murder by his mother to exclusive structure establishes the responsibility from 14-year age.
Taking into account the tendencies stated above, we have to agree with V. A. Kozlobayev and O. E. Batmano-va’s opinion concerning the necessity of decreasing the age of responsibility to 14 according to Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [9, 26-27].
Both among theorists of criminal law and in law-enforcement practice the question of qualification of the actions of accomplices who have committed the crime provided by Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is debatable.
Partnership in the form of collaboration of people who commit a newborn child murder with his mother brings accomplices to trial according to Point “в" of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or according to Point “ж" of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation depending on the number of collaborators. Mother as a special subject bears criminal liability according to Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The criminal law (Part 7 Art. 35 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) in its turn prescribes a more strict punishment for commission a crime in partnership. Thus one of the most important principles of criminal law, the principle of justice is broken. V. P. Karlov considered it to be necessary to qualify mother’s actions according to Point “ж" of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the specified case. V P. Karlov motivates it with the idea that committing a crime in partnership mother loses a sign of the special subject and becomes the person who has committed a crime with circumstance aggravating punishment [10, 20-21].
The specified point of view doesn’t seem to be reasonable because the psychophysiological condition of the woman itself caused allocation of newborn child murder as exclusive structure.
In the theory of criminal law the question of qualification of actions of the collaborators one of which have reached the age of 16 (the specified subject isn’t
special) and the age of the other is in range from 14 to 15 years is debatable. Thus actions of the first one should be qualified according to Point «в» Part 2 ofArt. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i. e. as a commission of an especially serious crime. And the mother who hasn’t reached the age of 16 isn’t subject to criminal liability. It also testifies of the necessity to decrease the age of the special subject to 14 years.
Besides, the question of how to qualify mother’s actions who is the organizer, the instigator or the helper in her newborn child murder is disputable. A. I. Korobeev considers it necessary to qualify actions of the mother according to Points 3,4,5 of Art. 33 of the criminal code of Russian Federation and to Point “в" of Part 2 Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the specified case, motivating it with the fact that a newborn child murder can be carried out by a special subject — his mother as an obligatory performer (collaborator) of this crime [11, 240].
This problem can be solved in 2 ways.
1) It is necessary to qualify actions of the mother according to Part 2 Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as the theorists of criminal law stated above offer. It seems to be more correct in the specified case to decriminalize Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and to return to the historical past of Russia and to the present of Germany where the specified structure is absent, and a newborn child murder by his mother is regarded as a simple murder [12, 3233]. According to statistical data Germany is among the countries with the smallest level of child violent mortality nowadays. Decriminalization of this article will allow to solve, besides, some other problems concerning the qualification of a newborn child murder by his mother. Now it isn’t possible to qualify a newborn twins murder by their mother according to Point “a" of Part 2 Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In this case the competition between the general and the special norms is observed, that, in turn, according to Point 3 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, means liability according to the special norm. Thus, in this case the liability will take place according to Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that also breaks the principle of justice of the criminal legislation.
Besides, in the theory of the criminal law there is an opinion according to which if a pregnant woman prepared for infanticide before childbirth, after careful consideration, her actions should be qualified as a simple murder. The supporter of this position is S. V Borodin
271
Section 13. Science of law
who specifies that in case of establishment of the fact of preliminary preparing of the pregnant woman to a newborn child murder it would be wrong to consider such murder as an exclusive one. However the specified position is not shared by all the scientists. V. V. Stashis considers that the moment ofappearing ofthe intention to kill a newborn child doesn’t influence on the qualification of a murder [13, 32-33]. The last opinion seems to be more adequate from the point of view of law, however, in case the woman didn’t feel any psychological discomfort and gave birth before repeatedly, the classification should take place according to the article providing liability for a simple murder. Besides the statistics testifies that nearly a half of the specified acts is made by women who have a child or many children.
2) Or it is necessary to follow the second way of reformation and to add Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the following qualifying signs: concerning two or more people; with special cruelty; commited by a group of people, by a group of people by a preliminary arrangement that will allow to appoint punishment for the specified act differentially.
Besides, the legislator’s assessment of the degree of public danger of an act provided by Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be also changed.
The analysis ofjurisprudence ofthe specified question revealed the following regularities. The most applied measures of criminal liability for a newborn child murder by his mother are a punishment in the form of 2 years of imprisonment with serving in a colony-settlement (18%), and also a suspended sentence in the form of 2 years of imprisonment (16%). Only in four criminal cases such type of a correctional facility as a standard
regime penal colony (7%) is chosen from 55 analysed cases, in other ones a colony-settlement (53%) is chosen. The most drastic measure of criminal liability is a punishment in the form of 4 years of imprisonment in a corrective standard regime penal colony. The softest type of punishment is the suspended sentence in the form of imprisonment for the term of 1,5 years. The punishment share in the form of a suspended sentence is 31%, in the form of a real imprisonment is 60%, in the form of a restriction of freedom is 9%.
The specified indicates the need of toughening of liability according to Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Besides, the punishment should be real instead of a suspended sentence. And if it is not imprisonment, it must be, at least, forced hard labor. The peculiarities of liability for infanticide existing abroad can be considered and transformed to the Russian legislation. The criminal legislation of France establishes liability for infanticide up to lifelong imprisonment. However it should be noted that this crime refers to a simple type of murder in the legislation of France. A very rigid punishment is established by the criminal legislation of Norway, that is imprisonment for a period of up to 12 years among the countries which have refered the specified structure to a number of the exclusive ones. Today Norway belongs to the countries with the lowest level of child violent mortality according to statistical data [12, 32-33].
In general the specified research testifies to the necessity of reformation of the existing situation in the field of newborn children life protection. And the specified changes should be carried out both taking into account the historical experience and loaning the number of the provisions existing abroad.
References:
1. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. URL: http://law.edu.ru/norm/norm.asp? normID=1243877
2. The Criminal Code of Ukraine. URL: http://meget.kiev.ua/kodeks/ugolovniy-kodeks/razdel-1-2/
3. Luneva A. The Peculiarities of Regulation of Responsibility for Infanticide According to the Criminal Legislation of the Countries of Anglo-Saxon System of Right (According to the Example of England, Canada and the USA)//the Legal World. 2011. No. 9.
4. The Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China. URL: http://ukknr.ucoz.ru/index/0-13
5. The Criminal Code ofJapan. URL: http://law.edu.ru/norm/norm.asp? normID=1241616
6. Grubova E. Problems of Responsibility for a Newborn Child’s Murder by His Mother in the Russian and Foreign Criminal Legislation: Abstracts. Theses. The Candidate ofjurisprudence. M, 2009.
7. Murzina L. Newborn Child’s Murder by His Mother: Criminal Legal and Criminological Problems: Thesis. The Candidate ofjurisprudence. Saratov, 2009.
8. The Criminal Code of France. URL: http://law.edu.ru/norm/norm.asp?normID=1243018
9. Cozlobaev V., Batmanova O. The Peculiarities of Qualification of a Newborn Child’s Murder by His Mother//The Russian Investigator. 2011. No. 23.
272
Секция 13. Юриспруденция
10. Carlov V. The problems of Qualification of a Newborn Child’s Murder by His Mother Committed in a Partnership with Another Person//The Russian investigator. 2011. No. 7.
11. Corobeev A. A Full Course of Criminal Law. St.Petersburg, 2008.
12. Luneva A. The Peculiarities of a Criminal and Legal Regulation and the Statistical Accounting of Infanticides in the Countries with the Lowest Level of Child Violent Mortality: Germany, Norway, Sweden//The Russian Investigator. 2011. No. 3.
13. Svyatenyuk N. A Newborn Child’s Murder by His Mother Committed in a Partnership with Other Persons//The Russian Investigator. 2005. No. 9.
Veretennikov Nikolai Nikolaevich, Pacific state University, associate Professor E-mail: Veretnn@mail.ru
Operative-search measures: theory and practice of judicial resolution
Abstract: the article analyzes the theory and practice of sanctions on the privacy of citizens. The author concludes that Russia developed and effective legal mechanisms that control operatively-search actions.
Keywords: human rights, private life, the court, resolution, investigation activities.
Веретенников Николай Николаевич, Тихоокеанский государственный университет,
доцент кафедры E-mail: Veretnn@mail.ru
Оперативно-розыскные мероприятия: теория и практика судебного разрешения
Аннотация: В статье анализируются теория и практика судебных санкций на неприкосновенность частной жизни граждан. Автором делается вывод, что в России созданы и эффективно действуют правовые механизмы, контролирующие проведение оперативно-розыскных мероприятий.
Ключевые слова: права человека, частная жизнь, суд, разрешение, розыскные мероприятия.
Право на неприкосновенность частной жизни, в том числе на тайну переписки, телефонных переговоров, почтовых, телеграфных и иных сообщений, гарантируется ст. 23 Конституции РФ.
Как справедливо замечено профессором И. Л. Петрухиным, неприкосновенность частной жизни — непрерывно поддерживаемое состояние, в котором реализуется правовой статус гражданина в этой сфере жизнедеятельности [8, 13-14]. Схожую точку зрения высказывает и М. В. Баглай, полагая, что частная жизнь составляет те стороны личной жизни человека, которые он в силу своей свободы не желает делать достоянием других» [1, 228]. На это же обращает внимание и Европейский Суд по правам человека. По его мнению, «чтобы национальное право соответствовало требованиям Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод, оно должно предусматривать меры правовой защиты от произвольного вмешательства публичных вла-
стей в осуществление прав, гарантируемых Конвенцией» (Данная позиция выражена в Постановлении Большой палаты Европейского Суда по делу «Хасан и Чауш против Болгарии»).
В то же время следует отметить, что признание прав и свобод человека высшей ценностью не означает отказа от признания ценности интересов государства и общества в целом. На это, в частности, обращают внимание ученые юристы: А. В. Лебедев, В. В. Киреев, А. И. Стахов и другие [5, 9]. Так Р. Ф. Байков обоснованно задает вопрос: «Что должен защищать суд? Только права и свободы человека (как это к примеру, вытекает из статьи 4 ФКЗ « О военных суда») или также права группы, права общества, права государства» [2, 12-13].
Поэтому, исходя из содержания преамбулы ФЗ «Об оперативно — розыскной деятельности» (далее Закон об ОРД) можно сделать вывод, что основное назначение оперативно-розыскной деятельности
273
