Stage of crime

The first stage preceding the commission of a socially dangerous act may be the formation of intent or the intent of a crime. Formation of intent is a mental activity of the subject, aimed at creating a mental model of a future crime: setting goals and objectives, choosing means and ways to achieve them, thinking about post-crime activities to conceal traces of a crime, etc. ^[2]

In the process of forming an intent or after its completion, a person may inform others about the intention to commit a crime (in verbal, written or other form). Such informing in the criminal law theory was called “intention detection” ^[2] .

After the criminal intent has been formed, the perpetrator can take certain planned actions aimed at preparing the conditions for bringing criminal intent into action: the acquisition of tools and means of crime , the search for accomplices , etc. ^[2]

Finally, the person must directly take actions aimed at causing harm to the objects of criminal law protection. These actions and the process of realization of criminal harm can be both simultaneous and protracted in time. ^[2]

As a rule, the formation and detection of intent is not a criminal offense . Subsequent stages of the implementation of criminal intent may already entail the occurrence of criminal liability . At the same time, each subsequent stage of the crime “absorbs” the previous one: if the crime was brought to the end guilty, a separate bringing him to justice for preparatory actions does not make sense ^[4] . When qualifying an unfinished crime, you must indicate at what stage it was interrupted.

Types of crimes whose stages have criminal legal significance

Criminal legal significance have only the stage of an intentional crime. Acts that lead to careless infliction of harm become criminal only at the moment of the actual onset of socially dangerous consequences , until then they are not considered criminal.

Some theorists have expressed opinions about the possibility of highlighting also the stages of an unwary crime ^[5] , but the majority of Russian scientists do not recognize the theoretical and practical value of such constructions ^[6] .

Only crimes committed with direct intent may be incomplete, since in reckless crimes and crimes with indirect intent there is no desired criminal result from the guilty ^[7] .

Controversial in the theory of criminal law is the question of whether crimes with a formal composition , crimes committed by inaction and crimes in which the culprit’s first behavioral act, forming the objective side of a crime, is considered unfinished, can be unfinished. Opponents of the recognition of the possibility of unfinished criminal activity indicate that in such cases, the activity of the person before the crime is completed is not criminal in nature, is indifferent to criminal law. So, for example, in the event of inaction, a person can indefinitely refrain from committing the actions required of him until some critical moment comes that will translate such inaction into the category of criminal ^[8] .

Meanwhile, it is indicated that in most crimes with a formal composition, at least preparatory activities are possible, and if the act consists of several acts, or if there is a gap in time between the beginning and the end of the criminal act, an attempt is also possible ^[9] .

Unfinished criminal activity is possible even if a crime is committed in a state of strong emotion , which did not rule out the possibility of a person anticipating the onset of socially dangerous consequences and desiring such an offensive ^[10] . At the same time, it is impossible to prepare and attempt to commit acts that exceed the limits of necessary defense or measures necessary to detain a person ^[11] .

Although the history of criminal law is known as the responsibility for the formation of intent ( Council Code of 1649 : “Who will be the intention to teach the evil business to think about the health of the state, but someone will inform about his evil intention, and according to that knowledge, his evil intent will be found that the tsarist majesty thought evil business and wanted to do it, and such is to execute death by death ”) and for his discovery (the Penal Code of Criminal and Correctional 1845 established responsibility for“ expressing it in words, or in writing, or akim or another act of intent to commit a crime ”), modern criminal law, as a rule, recognizes the formation and detection of intent to be punishable.

Formation of intent is an internal mental process, it does not manifest itself outside, and therefore by itself, without subsequent actions to implement such intent, does not constitute a threat to public relations protected by criminal law, interests and benefits. In addition, the right of the individual to freedom of thought is now recognized as inalienable. Therefore, the content of thoughts should not be subject to legal assessment.

Detection of intent in and of itself, not supported by concrete actions of a person aimed at the realization of an intention or at least the creation of conditions for such an implementation, is also not punishable. In this case, harm to the objects of criminal law protection is also not yet inflicted and there is no real threat of such harm, therefore, there can be no talk of public danger ^[3] . It is noted that the detection of intent often, on the contrary, prevents the commission of a crime , due to the timely adoption of measures to prevent crime ^[12] .

The punishment of detecting intent is characteristic mainly of state crimes in the legal systems of states with an autocratic or totalitarian regime, where the state seeks to control all spheres of human life, including for his private life . On the contrary, the liberal democratic ideology excludes the recognition of the detection of intent as criminal ^[13] . Montesquieu wrote that "the laws should punish only criminal actions" ^[14] . The Catherine II Order stated that "the laws are not obliged to punish any other than external or external actions." In general, it is stated that the punishability of detecting intent is related to judicial arbitrariness, since such punishability is based on the incursion of justice into the mental sphere of a person inaccessible to objective external observation ^[15] .

Intention Detection and Related Acts

Detection of intent should be distinguished from the threat of committing a crime, which in some cases (for example, the threat of murder or the infliction of grievous bodily harm ) may have an independent criminal and legal significance, since the very fact of the threat causes harm (mainly moral or organizational). The threat of committing a crime is not considered as a stage of realization of criminal intent, it is an independent criminal act, an informational action that carries an independent public danger ^[7] .

In addition, the detection of intent differs from the “informational” crimes, the essence of which is the transfer of certain information from one subject to another: insult , slander , public calls for the outbreak of aggressive war , etc. In such acts, the mere fact of the transfer of information causes criminal harm, is socially dangerous ^[12] .

Preparations for a crime are actions of a person, aimed at creating conditions for the future commission of a crime , which are not completed for reasons beyond the control of the person’s will.

When preparing for a crime, a person performs the first specific actions aimed at ensuring the commission of a future criminal assault, proceeds to the practical realization of his criminal intent ^[4] . Directly preparatory actions do not cause damage to the objects of criminal law protection, but they create conditions for causing them harm , which determines their public danger ^[16] .

Criminal acts are not recognized as any preparatory actions, but only carry an increased danger. In some legal systems, preparatory actions are recognized as completely unpunishable, but here it must be borne in mind that the laws of different countries provide different rules for distinguishing between preparation and attempted crime: the same actions (for example, acquiring a crime tool) can be considered as preparatory, and as already included in the attempted crime.

The following actions can be considered preparatory: preparation and retrieval of crime instruments , search for accomplices in a crime, actions for timely neutralization of technical means of protection, etc.

Attempted crime is an act of a person directly aimed at the commission of a crime , not brought to an end for reasons beyond the control of the person’s will.

In most criminal law systems of the countries of the world, an attempted crime, in accordance with the views of the classical school of criminal law, is interpreted as the beginning of the execution of the crime . In continental law, the criterion for distinguishing an assassination attempt from preparing for a crime is the nature of the causal link between the actions of a person and criminal consequences: if these actions create a real and immediate threat of consequences, there is an attempt, and if they are only conditions for causing harm - it’s about cooking. In Anglo-American law, the distinction is based on the degree of danger of the acts committed: those guilty actions that are characterized by relative proximity to the criminal result, which in itself is highly dangerous, have a sufficient danger to recognize the criminal offense ^[17] .

Attempts are divided into completed and unfinished. An attempted attempt is recognized as complete, in which the perpetrator is convinced that he did everything necessary to end the crime , but the criminal result did not occur due to circumstances beyond his control ^[18] . Unfinished is an attempt in which the perpetrator, due to circumstances beyond his control, did not perform all the actions ( inaction ) that he considered necessary to complete the crime ^[19] .

There is also an unsuitable attempt in which the actual failure of a person in the object or means of committing a crime is the cause of the failure to complete the crime . A bad attempt entails criminal liability , except for the use of funds that are obviously incapable of causing the desired result due to the extreme ignorance.

A crime is considered to be finished if the act committed by a person contains all the elements of a crime , provided for by criminal law . In this case, what matters is not so much the actual presence in the act of signs of a crime as the correspondence of the subject's idea of ​​the desired result to the actual circumstances of the case: the realization of all socially dangerous actions and the onset of all socially dangerous consequences ^[20] .

More detailed definitions of the completed crime are also given. A.I. Sitnikova believes that a completed crime should be understood as “an act containing all the elements and characteristics of a specific crime, in which criminal intent is fully (completely) implemented, with the exception of truncated crimes, which by the will of the legislator are considered complete in cases where the intention is partially implemented " ^[21] . She also gives the definition of an unfinished crime: it is “an intentional act, not carried to the end due to circumstances beyond the control of the person, and also voluntarily left in preparation for the crime and the attempted crime” ^[22] .

The crime with the material composition is considered to be finished from the moment of the onset of socially dangerous consequences . A crime with a formal composition is completed from the moment of the commission of socially dangerous actions (inaction) described in the law. Crimes with a truncated composition are considered to be completed not at the moment of the onset of consequences, but from the beginning of the commission of an action that creates a threat of onset of consequences ^[20] .

There are three points of view regarding the end of the crime. Supporters of the first of them point out that only the subjective idea of ​​the guilty party to commit all the actions necessary to complete the crime should be taken into account. Other authors declare that the finality of a crime is determined on the basis of the objective presence in the act of all the elements of a crime established by the legislator. Still others say that it is necessary to take into account both the objective presence of those signs that are stipulated by the law, and the subject's subjective idea of ​​the completeness of the act that he planned to commit ^[23] .

The moment of the recognition of a crime as finished does not always coincide with the moment when the crime is generally recognized as committed. Если, согласно распространённой в современном уголовном праве позиции, временем совершения преступления признается время совершения общественно опасного действия (бездействия) независимо от времени наступления последствий, то, например, убийство , совершённое с применением медленно действующего яда, будет признано оконченным преступлением с момента наступления смерти , однако временем совершения преступления будет время, когда виновный дал потерпевшему этот яд.

Добровольным отказом от совершения преступления признается прекращение лицом приготовления к преступлению либо прекращение действий (бездействия), непосредственно направленных на совершение преступления, если лицо осознавало возможность доведения преступления до конца. Лицо не подлежит уголовной ответственности за преступление , если оно добровольно и окончательно отказалось от доведения этого преступления до конца.

Добровольный отказ возможен на стадии приготовления к преступлению и неоконченного покушения . Возможность добровольного отказа на стадии оконченного покушения, когда виновный уже выполнил все действия, которые считал необходимыми для наступления преступных последствий , но они на момент отказа ещё не наступили по не зависящим от него причинам, является спорной.

Добровольный отказ от совершения преступления исключает привлечение к ответственности за совершение задуманного деяния. Однако если виновный до отказа от реализации основного преступного намерения в ходе неоконченной преступной деятельности уже успел совершить некие общественно опасные деяния (например, незаконно приобрёл оружие ), он может нести за это ответственность ^[24] .

Добровольный отказ не следует смешивать с деятельным раскаянием , которое представляет собой добровольное заглаживание причиненных общественно опасных последствий. Деятельное раскаяние осуществляется уже после окончания преступления и представляет собой активное поведение лица ^[24] .

Критике подвергается сама необходимость выделения стадий совершения преступления и их самостоятельного изучения в уголовно-правовой теории.

Г. В. Назаренко указывает, что ^[25] :

1. Во многих умышленных преступлениях никаких этапов их совершения выделить нельзя, равно как и во всех неосторожных преступлениях.
2. Не имеет никакого уголовно-правового значения выделение стадий совершения доведённого до конца преступления.
3. Не может рассматриваться как стадия преступления оконченное преступление, поскольку оно является уже завершённым.

Вместо стадий совершения преступления он предлагает считать предметом рассмотрения уголовного права виды прерванной преступной деятельности: приготовление к преступлению и покушение на него.