PDF

УДК 343.222.4

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2022-3-4(40-41)-5

ORCID: 0000-0002-7582-2071

Natalya ANTONYUK,

Judge of the Supreme Court, secretary of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court, PhD in Law, Associate Professor

DIFFERENTIATION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN UNFINISHED CRIMINAL OFFENSES

The article deals with issues related to the differentiation of criminal responsibility in case of preparation or attempt to commit a criminal act. The author expressed arguments that social danger is always evident by the preparation of towers on the one hand and by an attempt and completed crime on the other. However, establishing a clear difference between the public danger of an attempt and a completed criminal offense is premature and requires assessment at the stage of individualization of criminal responsibility. There are not always reasons for ascertaining a clear decrease in the level of public danger committed at the stage of an attempt. That is why the imperative approach to the differentiation of criminal responsibility between an attempt and a finished criminal offense by means of a mandatory reduction of the maximum penalty is cause for concern. It is more justified to solve this issue not categorically, that is, not by differentiating criminal responsibility, but by individualizing the latter. It is proposed that criminal liability for preparation should be imposed only for the range of criminal offenses clearly defined in a separate article of the General Part of the Criminal Code, based on taking into account the object of the offense and the nature of the socially dangerous act. It is not enough to base only on the categorization of criminal offenses to determine the range of those compounds, the preparation of which should attract criminal liability. As a result, the lack of grounds for imperative differentiation of criminal responsibility between an attempt and a completed crime is substantiated, in particular, it is worth abandoning the legislative approach to reducing the upper limit of the most severe punishment in the case of an attempt. At the same time, lowering the upper limit of the most severe punishment in the case of preparation for a criminal offense is correct.

Key words: differentiation, criminal liability, preparation, attempt, stage.

References

Criminal law of Ukraine / edited by Prof. P. S. Matyshevskyi, Assoc. P. P. Andrushka, S. D. Shapchenko. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter, 1997. 512 p. [ukr.].

Burdin V. M. Stages of committing a crime (criminal legal research): monograph. Lviv: LNU named after Ivan Franko, 2013. 304 p. [ukr.].

Vakula I. Yu. Stages of committing a crime under the criminal law of Ukraine and the Republic of Poland: a comparative legal study. Dissertation of Bachelor of Law Sciences. Lviv, 2019. 209 p. [ukr.].

Tyshkevich I. S. Selected works. Minsk: «Editorial Office of the magazine «Promyshlenno-torgovoe pravo», 2014. 480 p. [rus.].

Babanly R. Sh. Punishment in Ukraine: theoretical and applied principles. Abstract of the thesis. doctor of law of Sciences in the specialty 12.00.08. Kyiv, 2019. 31 p. [ukr.].