Guidelines for the Criminal Law of the RSFSR of 1919

As a normative act that defines the foundations of the criminal policy of the new Bolshevik state, the Principles were of a pronounced class character.

According to paragraph 3 of the Beginnings, “Soviet criminal law has the task of repressing to safeguard the system of social relations corresponding to the interests of the working masses, organized in the ruling class during the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat from capitalism to communism. It was pointed out that the commission of crimes in a class society is a consequence of the social order in which the criminal lives.

Aggravating circumstances recognized the commission of a crime by a person belonging to the owning class with the aim of restoring, maintaining or acquiring any privilege related to the right of ownership , as well as committing an act in the interests of restoring the power of the oppressing class. On the contrary, the commission of an act by the poor, in a state of hunger or want was considered a mitigating circumstance .

At the same time, scientists note that the Beginnings did not have a clearly repressive nature. On the contrary, the courts focused on expanding the scope of conditional punishment , imposing such penalties as public censure , forced labor , and friendly courts were created ^[1] .

The punishment , according to the Principles, was not retribution for “guilt”, not atonement, but a strictly defensive and appropriate measure. The principle of humanism of punishment was proclaimed: it should have been devoid of signs of torment, and not connected with causing the criminal useless and unnecessary suffering.

The definition of “ crime ” was given in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Principles. The crime recognized as a violation of public relations , protected by criminal law . The crime could be expressed both in the form of action and in the form of inaction , and should have been a danger to this system of social relations. Thus, the definition of crime was material in nature. The onset of responsibility was also associated with the commission of an action or inaction; being in a dangerous condition was not recognized as a condition of criminal liability ^[2] .

The age of criminal liability was set at 14 years. Educational measures could be applied to minors who have not reached this age. The same measures could be applied to persons of puberty 14-18 years old, acting without reason.

Quite wide was the norm on insanity . Persons who committed an act in a state of mental illness or in general in such a state when the person was not aware of their actions, as well as those who, although healthy in the commission of the crime, but were ill by the time the sentence was carried out, were not subject to criminal liability. mental illness. Compulsory treatment measures and other precautions could be applied to such persons.

A feature of the Beginnings is the absence of norms that define the concept of “ wine ” and distinguish its forms. However, the commission of a crime in the mind of the harm done, or, on the contrary, through ignorance and unconsciousness, was a circumstance affecting the measure of punishment.

The forms of complicity and the types of partners were distinguished. It was envisaged that for acts committed together by a group of persons (a gang, a gang , a crowd), both performers and instigators and accomplices are punished. Performers, according to the Principles, directly participated in the execution of a criminal act, instigators persuaded other persons to commit a crime, accomplices facilitated the execution of a criminal act in word or deed, advice, directions, elimination of obstacles, concealment of a criminal or traces of a crime. Aiding was considered, including connivance, that is, obstruction of the crime. A separate figure of the organizer of the crime was not allocated. Concerning the procedure for determining the measure of punishment in case of complicity, an indication was made that it is necessary to take into account not the degree of participation, but the degree of danger of the offender and the act committed by him.

The stages of the crime , such as preparation, attempt, and finished crime, were distinguished. Preparation for a crime was considered to be the acquisition, acquisition or adaptation by a person preparing a crime of means, tools, etc. to commit a crime. An attempt to commit a crime was considered an action aimed at committing a crime when the perpetrator did everything that he considered necessary to bring his intent to execution, but the criminal result did not come about for reasons beyond his control. The crime was considered completed when the intent of the perpetrator of the crime was realized to the end. The stages of the crime were not associated with the punishment, which in this case depended only on the degree of danger of the identity of the offender.

There was also a rule about the necessary defense , which was possible from attack and other violence against the person.

Punishment was understood as measures of coercive influence by means of which the authorities ensure this order of social relations and protect it from violators (criminals).

Among the goals (tasks) of the punishment were the protection of public order and the prevention of new attacks on him both by a specific criminal and by other persons (general and special prevention). It was pointed out that it is possible to protect public order from future criminal acts of a person who has already committed a crime either by adapting it to a given public order or, if it cannot be adapted, isolating it, and, in exceptional cases, physically destroying it.

The system of punishments provided for by the Guiding Principles included suggestion, expression of public censure, coercion to an action that does not constitute physical deprivation (for example, to undergo training), announcement under a boycott , expulsion from the association for a while or forever, restoration, and if it is impossible to compensate it damage, loss of office, prohibition to hold a particular position or to perform a particular job, the confiscation of all or part of the property, deprivation of political rights, ad enemy m revolution or people , forced labor without the proper place of imprisonment, deprivation of liberty for a short period of time or for an indefinite period until the well-known events (including "before the victory of the world revolution " ^[3] ), outlaw, shooting . The death penalty could only be used by the Revolutionary Tribunal .

In determining the measure of influence on the perpetrator of the crime, the court had to assess the degree and nature (property) of the danger to society of both the criminal himself and the act committed by him. For these purposes, the court, not limited to studying the whole situation of the crime committed, had to find out the signs of the identity of the criminal , which were manifested in the committed act and its motives, based on the lifestyle of the criminal and his past. In addition, it was necessary to assess how much the act itself under the given conditions of time and place violates the foundations of public safety .

In addition to the above, aggravating circumstances included the commission of an act by a professional criminal (recidivist), group, gang, gang; committing an act through violence against a person; having a deliberate intention; cruelty, anger, deceit, cunning related to the commission of a crime. Mitigating circumstances recognized the commission of a crime for the first time, in a state of passion, frivolity and negligence.

The basis for exemption from punishment was the disappearance of conditions in which a certain act, or a person who committed it, seemed dangerous to the social system.

It was also envisaged the possibility of applying a conditional conviction , that is, not bringing a guilty verdict providing for detention, to be executed before the convict commits an identical or homogeneous act with perfect.

• The text of the Guiding Principles on the Criminal Law of the RSFSR of 1919 .