The public danger of an act in an intersectoral dimension

Relevance. In the criminal law doctrine, the sign of public danger is defined as fundamental, allowing one to distinguish a crime from other offenses. The increasing complexity of existing legal relations and the unsystematic development of sectoral rule-making call into question this dogmatic judgment. The feasibility of using this characteristic as an unconditional basis for criminalization requires verification.

The purpose of the study is to assess the prospects for using the sign of public danger to criminalize an act and distinguish a crime from other offenses.

Objectives: study the genesis of the material sign of a crime with the identification of its criminal-political function at the stage of its emergence and in the process of evolution.

Methodology. The methodological basis of the study was the universal dialectical method of cognition of phenomena and processes of the surrounding reality. In the course of developing the theoretical provisions of the work, historical-legal, formal-logical, formal-legal, semantic and other methods were also used.

Results. Initially, the sign of public danger had a fundamentally different criminal and political meaning. It opened up wide possibilities for applying the law by analogy. The question of distinguishing the criminal from the noncriminal through its use was not raised. Subsequently, the demarcation of protective legislation and attempts to give sectoral uniqueness to criminal law by using a material sign of the social danger of an act did not resolve the issue of the boundaries of criminalization and the limits of the state’s punitive power; on the contrary, the situation worsened. Using examples from practice, based on the judgments of researchers about the essence of the social danger of an act, the authors of the article question the advisability of using this feature as an unconditional basis for the criminalization of an act.

Conclusions. Based on the results of the study, the authors come to the conclusion that in the process of criminalization of an act, the focus of attention should be shifted from an idealized sign of social danger to the principles of criminalization: economy of repression, formal certainty, intersectoral consistency and proportionality, as well as the expediency of criminalization (declaring a crime) from the perspective of the possibilities of criminal the right to influence real relationships, transforming them qualitatively.

1. Milyukov S.F. Public danger as a fundamental category of criminal law and criminology. In: Public danger in criminal, penal enforcement Law and criminology: materials of the XIV Russian Congress of Criminal Law, held on May 30-31, 2024. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2024. P. 391–395. (In Russ.)

2. Gogin A.A. Correlation of concepts of public danger and social harmfulness of offenses. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoj akademii MVD Rossii = Legal science and practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2019;1(45):102‒107. (In Russ.)

3. Gerasimov A.M. Criminal offense and its elements. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2020. 176 p. (In Russ.)

4. Miroshnichenko D.V. About public danger as a scandal (scandalum), or the emotivist concept of crime. Evrazijskaya advokatura = Eurasian Advocacy. 2023;(3):76–80. (In Russ.)

5. Kuzneczova N.F. Znachenie obshhestvennoj opasnosti deyanij dlya ikh kriminalizacii i dekriminalizacii. Gosudarstvo i pravo = State and Law. 2010;(6):67‒75. (In Russ.)

6. Sergeeva E.Y. Public danger as the main sign of a crime and a tool for differentiating criminal liability. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya i pravo = Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: History and Law. 2021;11(1):19‒30. (In Russ.)

7. Lopashenko N.A., Golikova A.V., Kobzeva E.V., Kovlagina D.A., Lapunin M.M., Khutov K. M. (eds.) Public danger of crime: the concept and criteria of verification. Pravoprimenenie = Law enforcement. 2020;(4):124‒140. (In Russ.)

8. Kobzeva E.V. Criteria of public danger of an act taken into account when differentiating criminal and other types of legal liability. Vestnik Saratovskoi gosudarstvennoi yuridicheskoi akademii = Bulletin of the Saratov State Juridical Academy. 2020;(6):207‒215. (In Russ.)

9. The course of Soviet criminal law. General part. Vol. 2. Crime. Moscow: Nauka; 1970. 516 p. (In Russ.)

10. Manʹkovskij B. The situation on the front of the theory of socialist criminal law. Moscow: Yurid. izd-vo NKYu SSSR; 1938. 36 p. (In Russ.)

11. Prigov S.A. Crime and punishment in the workers' and peasants' State. Kharkov: Yurid. izd-vo Narkomyusta USSR; 1925. 56 p.

12. Ponyatovskaya T.G. Conceptual foundations of Russian criminal law: history and modernity. Moscow: Prospekt; 2022. 144 p. (In Russ.)

13. Durmanov N.D. The concept of crime. Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR; 1948. 315 p. (In Russ.)

14. Shnejder M.A. Soviet criminal law, General part. Moscow: Gosyurizdat; 1955. 140 p. (In Russ.)

15. Piontkovskij A.A. Strengthening the role of the public in the fight against crime and some issues of the theory of Soviet criminal law. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo = The Soviet State and Law. 1961;(4):60–70. (In Russ.)

16. Sakharov A.B. Official crimes and disciplinary misconduct. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo = The Soviet State and Law. 1955;(2):60–67. (In Russ.)

17. Tureczkij M.V. Criminal and disciplinary liability. Moscow: Izd-vo MGU; 1957. 24 p. (In Russ.)

18. Bakhrakh D.N., Rossinskij B.V., Starilov Y.N. Administrative law. 3rd ed. Moscow: Norma; 2005. 800 p. (In Russ.)

19. Popov L.L., Kozlov Y.M., Ovsyanko D.M. Administrative law / pod red. L. L. Popova. 2nd ed. Moscow: Yurist; 2005. 703 p. (In Russ.)

20. Kozlov Y.M. Administrative law. Moscow: Yurist; 1999. 320 p. (In Russ.)

21. Zakharchuk S.D., Matveeva E.V. Administrative offense: socially dangerous or socially harmful act. Pravoporyadok: istoriya, teoriya, praktika = Law and order: history, theory, practice. 2023;(3):29–38. (In Russ.)

22. Lopashenko N.A. Intersectoral differentiation: a model of criteria taken into account when criminalizing acts. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya i pravo = Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: History and Law. 2018;8(4):131–136. (In Russ.)

23. Izyumova E.S. Differentiation of an administrative offense and a crime in the legislation of the Soviet period (1917-1991). Pravoporyadok: istoriya, teoriya, praktika = Law and order: history, theory, practice. 2021;(3):14–19. (In Russ.)

24. Pusurmanov G.V. On the composition of a civil tort. Zhurnal pravovykh i ekonomicheskikh issledovanij = Journal of Legal and Economic Research. 2024;(1):69–78. (In Russ.)

25. Lipinskij D.A., Musatkina A.A. The public danger of an offense in scientific and legislative definitions of Russia and foreign countries. Voprosy bezopasnosti = Security issues. 2015;(3):24–44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21869/2409-7543.2015.3.15941