Why did the initiative of the Russian Armed Forces on the transfer of minor crimes into the category of administrative cases have stuck in the offices of the security forces

Why did the initiative of the Russian Armed Forces on the transfer of minor crimes into the category of administrative cases have stuck in the offices of the security forces

At the end of 2012, the chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia Vyacheslav Lebedev at the All -Russian Congress of Judges proposed to decriminalize insignificant crimes that provide for up to three years in prison, and transfer them to the category of administrative proceedings. We are talking about crimes of small severity committed by citizens for the first time: theft of a bicycle, products from a store, non -payment of a loan bank, violation of sanitary standards or fire safety rules, etc.

- Today, almost everything that we do is punishable, but why should I immediately go to court?! - then asked Lebedev. And he cited statistics: for unskilled theft, fraud and embezzlement, every tenth defendant is sentenced to about 80 thousand people. Russian courts of general jurisdiction are simply littered with such insignificant cases. However, the most anxiety among the head of the Armed Forces caused just convicts. Yes, usually people in such cases do not go to the zone, receive alternative punishments: conditional period, fines, restriction of freedom, mandatory and correctional labor. But after all, the fact of criminal record (conditional or not) is able to break fate: it is difficult to get a job, you will have to forget about a career in a civil service, it’s hard to get a passport or take a loan. Moreover, the children of the convicted person also suffer, who with a high degree of probability will not be able to serve in law enforcement and get a good position in state authorities. What remains is to slide deeper until you reach the marginal bottom?

If such crimes are decriminalized, then the state will receive the same fine and at the same time there is a chance that it will not lose a person for society. Yes, in many cases, the courts will have to revise their sentences, because the law that softened the position of a person has retroactive force. But, you see, this is not so scary.

Then, in 2012, the initiative of Vyacheslav Lebedev, it would seem, was supported by the chairman of the State Duma committee on civil, criminal, arbitration and procedural law Pavel Krasheninnikov. True, he remarked: “Much depends on how the offers on paper are set out. There will be a text, we will watch. There is no need to rush here. A year or two-and the expert community must determine the concept of the new Criminal Code, and then the Duma to accept it within two to three years. ”

Actually, no one was going to hurry. In addition to the Supreme Court, who prepared its written proposals, which were sent to law enforcement agencies - to the review (such order). By the way, Lebedev, even then, at the congress of judges, emphasized: he voices his position and is not at all convinced that the power structures will perceive it positively. I looked into the water. Three years have passed - the idea of ​​replacing a criminal record for not serious crimes with an administrative punishment died out at the stage of discussion in the offices of the security forces: SK, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the prosecutor's office, the Ministry of Justice. Either there are any bureaucratic wires, or frank unwillingness to objectively underestimate the statistics of the disclosure of crimes (the very notorious “sticks” that improve the indicators just due to any little things, a serious crime is difficult to reveal).

Meanwhile, many academic lawyers, lawyers and human rights activists have long been saying that the need for a wide discussion of the concept of the development of criminal legislation has not only been shaken, but has become vital. That it has long been time to attract experts, scientists, law enforcement officers, representatives of civil society and decide everything together: what we want is more criminal records and, as a result, relapses or more balanced court decisions.

Perhaps we will begin this discussion. To begin with, the “new” interviewed lawyers, lawyers and lawyers whether they support this specific idea of ​​the Supreme Court on the decriminalization of minor crimes.

Criminal record as an extreme necessity

Henry Reznik, Honored Lawyer of Russia, President of the Russian Law Chamber:

- Naturally, I support the idea, because, indeed, in case of extreme need, it is necessary to punish with a criminal record, otherwise stigmatization ( from the Greek. Στí γμα is “ label, stigma .” * - V. Ch. *), A “criminal”, “criminal”, “criminal”, and this criminal record will reflect on his biography in the future. So Lebedev is right.

In general, criminal repression is an emergency means, since it criminalizes the personality and creates a criminal record. With fine theft, there is no need to detain and judge a person who first performs such an act. In this petty theft, harmfulness cannot be seen, which turns a person from just a violator into a criminal. It is necessary to save criminal repression and it is necessary to treat their fellow citizens gentle. After all, frankly, people commit these thefts sometimes in order to just eat, solve some kind of pressing problem ... It can be people who are on the edge. We need to enter their position. But, of course, we are talking about those who committed theft for the first time, and not about recidivists. And then it is enough to state the violation and impose administrative responsibility. This, by the way, will unload the hands with our pinkers and protect from the temptation to improve statistics at the expense of acts that do not even need disclosure.

Crimes still should be considered acts of really socially dangerous. And to expose household stroke from a supermarket, which is first perfect, it is inappropriate to shoot from a gun at sparrows.

Marina Andreeva, lawyer:

- Yes, I support if we are talking about the first crime of minor gravity. My personal experience both as a former investigator and as a lawyer suggests that if for such crimes committed for the first time to give real punishment, then with a high degree of probability a person will be recruited in places of imprisonment of extremely negative experience. But just the idea that he will receive a real term for a second crime will help him to hold himself in his hands.

Dmitry Dovgiy, lawyer, previously head of the Main Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee at the prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation:

- The initiative is positive. Of course, a number of non -serious offenses should be decriminalized and transferred to the category of administrative without all those consequences that the criminal record gives rise to. Indeed, even with a slight punishment - a fine, correctional labor - still the legal consequences of criminal records extend much further and are not even covered by the period of repayment of the criminal record. Often, very many convicts are difficult to get a good job, it is impossible to participate in the elections, get a passport, and so on.

Vladimir Krasnov, lawyer:

- I also vote for this idea. From any point of view, it is advisable. Although, of course, an offense is an offense, a person must be liable. But there should be an administrative proceedings for such small occasions. People will not be amazed in rights, struck so strongly that it will be inadequate to them perfect. Well, then the courts would have unloaded. The overload of the courts is the same obvious fact, it leads to a violation of the trial, and to the fact that the judges do not have the opportunity to delve into the essence of the case sometimes. So it is worth realizing such an initiative.

Konstantin Rivkin, lawyer:

- At a time when the indictment of the indictment reigns in criminal proceedings, any decriminalization should be welcomed. Perhaps it is advisable to return to the practice of Soviet times, when the so -called administrative prejudice was applied: criminal liability occurred only if the act was committed again within a year. The first misconduct was punished in administrative order. Thus, for the first time a small responsibility will advance for the perfect, and for the “relapse” - a punishment already under the Criminal Code.

What are the prospects

Henry Reznik:

- On the one hand, I do not see obstacles to the implementation of the idea. On the other hand, if there are objections from our glorious law enforcement agencies, then in this case, “teeth” crawl out: it will mean that they want to create an easy life for themselves, not to disclose the actual serious crimes, but to create statistics, to show how they are fighting crime, calling the criminals dozens, hundreds of thousands of people who actually commit non -dramatic acts.

Dmitry Dovgiy:

- Unfortunately, it seems to me that such an initiative will not be supported by law enforcement agencies. After all, this initiative is amazing and unusual: acts that do not represent a large public danger, a large number. I think it will be against a lot of departments. First of all, the bodies of inquiry, because almost everything will be excluded from their competence. And this decriminalization will entail a sufficiently large decrease in citizens' prosecution to criminal liability, and, accordingly, salaries and all other bonuses of officials who are involved in justice will be at risk.

Vladimir Krasnov :

- Yes, as they say, such ideas are not in trend. We have more new prohibitions than some additional messages. And it's sad.

... Somehow it always turns out that the idea that causes optimism at the beginning, over time-closer to the stage of its implementation-begins to be given to pessimism. As it will be in this case, we do not know yet. But let's try to clarify by sending requests to the UK, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice with the question: whether your reviews are ready for the initiative of the Supreme Court of Russia and what is your point of view on this.

PS We invite all interested lawyers to the discussion: both practitioners and theorists. And not only, by the way, on this topic, in general, it is already time to discuss how our criminal legislation will develop further.