Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://dspace.nlu.edu.ua//jspui/handle/123456789/16854Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Орловський, Руслан Семенович | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-10-25T18:10:50Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-10-25T18:10:50Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Орловський Р. С. Інститут співучасті в кримінальному праві України : автореф. дис. ... д-ра юрид. наук : 12.00.08 / Р. С. Орловський ; наук. конс. Л. М. Кривоченко ; Нац. юрид. ун-т ім. Ярослава Мудрого. – Харків, 2019. – 44 с. | ru_RU |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/16854 | - |
| dc.description | Dissertation for a Doctor of Juridical Science degree in specialty 12.00.08 «Criminal Law and Criminology; Criminal-Executive Law». – Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. – Kharkiv, 2019. This thesis is devoted to a comprehensive exploration of the problems of criminal complicity, in as much as it constitutes an institute of criminal law. This research uses systematic, functional and psychological approaches to define the structure and relationships of the institute of criminal complicity, and the work also seeks to determine complicity’s place in criminal-legal regulation. It is proven that criminal complicity constitutes an independent institute of the general part of criminal law, consisting of an integrated group of norms, regulations, and ideas that are intended to carry out the functional tasks of: 1) ensuring criminalization of acts made by individuals who did not carry out the actus reus themselves, but have objective relations to the crime that was committed; 2) using statutes to define and express the objectively higher level of social danger of crimes committed by the joint efforts of several culprits (compared to crimes committed singly). It is proven that the institute of criminal complicity ought to be conceptualized as consisting of three sub-institutes: a) types of accomplices, b) forms of partnership to commit a crime; 3) special aspects of the criminal liability of accomplices. The historical development of the institute of criminal complicity has been determined by the domination of two opposing trends. The first one is the drive to establish accurate and clear criteria to determine whether a person is an accomplice and define the limits of responsibility of accomplices for a crime. This trend has resulted in a narrowing of scope as to which behavior falls in the legal regulation of the institute of complicity. The second tendency has been towards the gradual broadening of legal regulation of complicity, through the differentiation of the kinds of responsibility of accomplices. Such differentiation depends on the type and extent of participation in a crime, the form of partnership to commit a crime, etc. Accounting for these trends enables the prediction of possible ways the institute of criminal complicity will further develop. This thesis defines the specific functions of the institute of complicity in the system of criminal law. The first function is to create a normative justification for bringing an individual to criminal liability, when that person did not directly commit an act defined in an article of the Special part of the Criminal Code, but merely abetted, aided or organized its commission. The second function is to assess and propone the greater social threat posed by crimes committed in complicity rather than committed singly, expressing in law as increased punishment for this increased social danger. This second function also includes ranking the increased social danger of crimes committed by different types of criminal groups and organizations and determining the defining traits of such groups. The third function is to determine special aspects of criminal liability of accomplices and defining the limits of imputation. The ways in which institutional norms on complicity assist in completing those functions are considered. It is established, that in the course of creating the model of the institute of criminal complicity in law, the legislature chose a certain combination of the provisions of accessory theory and the theory of independent responsibility of accomplices. The existing model of the legislative regulation on some issues tends to overuse the provisions of accessory theory. Such an overreliance on accessory theory is immanent to the provisions of the law related to the issues of qualification of crimes of accomplices and their criminal liability. This leads to contradictions between the «black letter law» on the one hand, and both the doctrine of criminal law and case law on the other. Considering this, possible ways to transition from the overwhelming use of accessory theory to the adoption of the theory of independent responsibility have been offered in this thesis. A number of contradictions of the institute of complicity in a crime with the other institutes of both the General and the Special part of criminal law have been considered. Among the most salient of them, solutions to which have been offered in the thesis, are such: 1) the lack of subordination of a definition of the principal offender to a definition of the subject of crime (perpetrator of a crime) in the Criminal Code; 2) the lack of the accurate means of demarcation of the principal offender from other accomplices; 3) the overlap between different types of accomplices, in particular between the organizer, the aider and the abetter; 4) certain types of behavior that should objectively constitute an abetting, which are not provided for as such in the law; 5) in some cases, the legal definition of abetting, which is being extended unreasonably to types of behavior that should not constitute a criminal complicity (such as the systematic concealment of a criminal without having promised such concealment in advance, providing the tools and means to commit of crime, unknowing possession of the traces of crime or objects obtained in a criminal way or acquisition or sale of such objects); 6) the existing rules of qualification of crime of accomplices, which do not allow an accurate reflection of the grounds for their criminal liability and correlation between norms of institute of complicity and other provisions of the General part of criminal law; 7) lack of clearness on the limits of imputation to accomplices; 8) the issue of voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose of accomplice, who carried out several roles in a crime, which stays unresolved. The proposals to amend the legislation in force in order to address the aforementioned problems have been developed. They constitute main findings and conclusions of the dissertation. | ru_RU |
| dc.description.abstract | Дисертація на здобуття наукового ступеня доктора юридичних наук за спеціальністю 12.00.08 «Кримінальне право та кримінологія; кримінально-виконавче право». – Національний юридичний університет імені Ярослава Мудрого, Міністерство освіти і науки України. – Харків, 2019. Робота присвячена комплексному дослідженню проблем співучасті у злочині як інституту кримінального права. У дисертації на основі застосування системного, функціонального та психологічного підходів розглянуто внутрішню структуру та зовнішні зв’язки інституту співучасті у злочині, а також його місце в механізмі кримінально-правового регулювання. Досліджено теоретичні та методологічні засади формування інституту співучасті у злочині, визначено роль доктрини кримінального права у становленні нормативних приписів про співучасть у злочині, виявлено переваги існуючого нормативного регулювання та наявні в ньому проблеми й суперечності. Проаналізовано структуру інституту співучасті у злочині та її складові елементи: види співучасників, форми співучасті та кримінальна відповідальність за співучасть у злочині. Розкрито співвідношення інституту співучасті з іншими інститутами як Загальної, так і Особливої частини кримінального права. Сформульовано теоретичну модель нормативного закріплення інституту співучасті у злочині в тексті кримінального закону при його подальшому вдосконаленні. | ru_RU |
| dc.language.iso | uk_UA | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | інститут кримінального права | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | кримінально-правова норма | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | системність кримінального права | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | інститут співучасті | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | співучасть у злочині | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | теорії співучасті у злочині | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | види співучасників | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | форми співучасті | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | кримінальна відповідальність співучасників | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | кваліфікація співучасті у злочині | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | добровільна відмова співучасників | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | призначення покарання співучасникам | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | institute of criminal law | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | norm of the criminal law | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | consistency of the criminal law | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | institute of complicity | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | complicity in a crime | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | theory of complicity in a crime | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | types of accomplices | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | forms of complicity | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | criminal liability of accomplices | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose of accomplices | ru_RU |
| dc.subject | sentencing of accomplices | ru_RU |
| dc.title | Інститут співучасті в кримінальному праві України | ru_RU |
| dc.title.alternative | Institute of complicity in the criminal law of Ukraine | ru_RU |
| dc.type | Book | ru_RU |
| Appears in Collections: | 12.00.08 – Кримінальне право та кримінологія; кримінально-виконавче право | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orlovskyi_2019.pdf | 371.86 kB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.