Differentiation of criminal responsibility during imposing punishment for unfinished crime

  • N. O. Antoniuk Ph.D, associate professor, associate professor of Department of Criminal Law and Criminology of Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7582-2071
Keywords: attempt to commit a crime, preparation of a crime, differentiation of criminal responsibility.

Abstract

Widening of differentiation of criminal responsibility for preparation of a crime or attempt to commit a crime by amendments of Criminal Code of Ukraine in 2008 led not only to positive effects but to certain problems for judicial implementation as well. The legislator differentiated the upper border of punishment but failed to consider the peculiarity of application of § 2, 3 of article 68 by courts, concerning that sanctions of the most Articles of Special part of Criminal Code had been constructed without due regard for such amendments in future. This led to breach of balance between individualization and differentiation of criminal responsibility. Implementation of principle of justice of criminal law and execution of tasks of the Criminal Code are highly dependent on resolution of the mentioned problem.

The purpose of the article. Establishing the shortcomings of legal regulations of differentiation of criminal responsibility for preparation of a crime or attempt to commit a crime and making proposals on their removal are the purposes of this research.

The scientific novelty of the article is reflected in establishing the interrelation between the rules of imposing punishment for unfinished crime and differentiation of criminal responsibility. Legal shortcomings of such a differentiation are analyzed in this aspect, the proposals on their removal are made. The essence of differentiated lower border of punishment for unfinished crime is explained. The lack of necessity of establishing minimum borders of alternative less serious punishments is grounded.

Сonclusions. Limitation of the upper border of the most serious punishment for preparation of a crime or attempt to commit a crime widens differentiation of criminal responsibility and diminishes judicial discretion without no grounds, taking into consideration the leak of normative regulation of the lower border of punishment.

That’s why certain amendments of the Code are necessary to introduce proportionality between the upper limit of punishment (according to § 2, 3 of article 68) and lower limit.

It is necessary to consider that most sanctions of articles of the Special part of the Code contain alternative punishments. But the mentioned rule shall be applied only to the most serious of them except life imprisonment. Having the possibility of wider individualization among certain alternative punishments, the court would be able to apply them considering the borders of the sanction.

Proportional decrease in borders of these less strict punishments wouldn’t improve the possibilities of judicial discretion, for it always depends on the most extreme limits of sanctions in both ends. Alternatively, this could lead to breaches between the seriousness of the upper limit of less strict punishment and lower limit of the more strict one.

References

1. Christopher R. Does attempted murder deserve greater punishment than murder? Moral luck and the duty to prevent harm. Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y. 2004. № 18. С. 419 – 435.
2. Davis M. Why Attempts Deserve Less Punishment than Complete Crimes. Law and Philosophy. 1986. URL: www.jstor.org/stable/3504711 (Дата звернення: 15.02.2020).
3. Кругликов Л. Л., Васильевский А. В. Дифференциация ответственности в уголовном праве. СПб. : Издательство «Юридический центр Пресс», 2002. 300 с.
4. Бабанли Р. Ш. Проблеми індивідуалізації покарання за незакінчений злочин. Науковий вісник Ужгородського національного університету. Серія ПРАВО.– 2016. № 36. С. 76–79.
5. Хавронюк М. І. Покарання за готування до злочину і замах на злочин: парадокси національного Кримінального кодексу, особливо у порівнянні з іноземними. URL: http://www.zakonoproekt.org.ua/pokarannya-za-ghotuvannya-do-zlochinu-izamakh-na-zlochin-paradoksi.aspx (Дата звернення: 15.02.2020).
6. Маслак Н. В. Кримінальна відповідальність за готування до злочину : монографія. Харків : Право, 2010. 232 с.
7. Горностай А. В. Кримінальна відповідальність за замах на злочин : монографія. Х. : Юрайт, 2013. 232 с.
8. Красницький І. В., Щутяк Л. С. Відповідальність за замах на злочин за кримінальним правом України. Львів : ЛьвДУВС, 2015. 224 с.
9. Постанова Верховного Суду у складі колегії суддів Першої судової палати Касаційного кримінального суду. 2019. URL: http://reestr.court.gov.ua/Review/84211567 (Дата звернення: 15.02.2020).

References:
1. Babanly, R. Sh. (2016). Problemy indyvidualizatsii pokarannia za nezakinchenyi zlochyn. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia PRAVO, 36, 76–79 [in Ukrainian].
2. Christopher, R. (2004). Does attempted murder deserve greater punishment than murder? Moral luck and the duty to prevent harm. Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y, 18, 419–435.
3. Davis, M. (1986). Why Attempts Deserve Less Punishment than Complete Crimes. Law and Philosophy, 5(1), 1-32. URL: www.jstor.org/stable/3504711 (Last accessed: 15.02.2020).
4. Hornostai, A. V. (2013). Kryminalna vidpovidalnist za zamakh na zlochyn. Kharkiv: Yurait, 232 [in Ukrainian].
5. Khavroniuk, M. I. (2009). Pokarannia za hotuvannia do zlochynu i zamakh na zlochyn: paradoksy natsionalnoho Kryminalnoho kodeksu, osoblyvo u porivnianni z inozemnymy. URL: http://www.zakonoproekt.org.ua/pokarannya-za-ghotuvannya-do-zlochinu-izamakh-na-zlochin-paradoksi.aspx (Last accessed: 15.02.2020) [in Ukrainian].
6. Krasnytskyi, I. V., Shchutiak, L. S. (2015). Vidpovidalnist za zamakh na zlochyn za kryminalnym pravom Ukrainy. Lviv: LvDUVS, 224 [in Ukrainian].
7. Kruglikov, L. L., Vasil'evskij, A. V. (2002). Differenciacija otvetstvennosti v ugolovnom prave. SPb.: «Juridicheskij centr Press», 300 [in Russian].
8. Maslak, N. V. (2010) Kryminalna vidpovidalnist za hotuvannia do zlochynu: monohrafiia. Kharkiv: Pravo, 232 [in Ukrainian].
9. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu u skladi kolehii suddiv Pershoi sudovoi palaty Kasatsiinoho kryminalnoho sudu. (2019). URL: http://reestr.court.gov.ua/Review/84211567 (Last accessed: 15.02.2020) [in Ukrainian].

Abstract views: 3
PDF Downloads: 7
Published
2020-03-13
How to Cite
Antoniuk, N. O. (2020). Differentiation of criminal responsibility during imposing punishment for unfinished crime. Scientific Papers of the Legislation Institute of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, (2), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.32886/instzak.2020.02.06