<<
>>

§ 1. Differentiation of the criminal liability for the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment

Questions of differentiation of responsibility in criminal law are in the centre of attention of the Russian scientists-criminalists. Researches are spent both on obshchenormativnom level, and with reference to responsibility for separate kinds of crimes.

The differentiation of the criminal liability admits to one of the major directions of the criminal policy, realisation of principles of justice, equality of citizens before the law, humanism and achievement of the purposes of punishment as it provides gradation of limits of this responsibility and during too time acts as the precondition of an individualization of punishment by court. Under F.R.Sundurova's certificate, idea of differentiation of the criminal liability has offered and has proved A.A.Piontkovsky in XIX century. It is represented a corner stone of the criminal legislation, the basic beginning of the theory and the civilised legislative practice, a necessary condition of an embodiment of principles of justice, legality and equality in sphere of criminal justice. [325]

Before to consider approaches to differentiation of the criminal liability for the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment, we will analyse its general problems, in particular, concept, essence, criteria and its is social-legal value.

As is known, vuk RFnet concepts «differentiation of responsibility» or only "punishment", is not present in it and concepts «a punishment individualization» though the primary goal of the legislator which he solves in the course of lawmaking in this area, is imennoopredelenie the differentiated limits of responsibility depending on enough various bases. The given problem dares as by konstruirovanijapolozheny General part UK the Russian Federation, so, as a matter of fact, in all norm (without an exception) Special part UK the Russian Federation. It is possible to draw, in our opinion, a conclusion that social efficiency and the importance of the criminal legislation is defined first of all by sequence of differentiation of responsibility in its norms. Inevitability of differentiation of responsibility is caused various on character of the social danger by crimes (on the one hand, say, for act of terrorism or high treason, and with another – for a negligence or a fake of the state awards, stamps, the seals, forms). Character of the social danger – one of the basic criteria of differentiation of responsibility in the criminal legislation. Certainly, for differentiation of responsibility and definition of its limits typical degree of the social danger of crimes of the same kind (theft or theft with aggravating, that is with qualifying signs, or the pollution of the waters which have done essential harm to an animal or flora, fish stocks or agriculture, or the pollution of the waters which have entailed on imprudence death of the person) has essential value. If to start with sanctions of norms of Special part UK the Russian Federation typical degree of the social danger of a crime of the same kind attracts distinction in the criminal liability on some usages. For example, murder at aggravating circumstances is punished by imprisonment from 8 till 20 years, either lifelong imprisonment, or a death penalty while for the murder made at excess of requirements of justifiable defence, punishments in the form of freedom restriction, either forced hard labour are provided, or imprisonments for the term up to two years.

Considerable possibilities for differentiation of responsibility predusmotrenyv norms of General part UK the Russian Federation.

In the domestic literature the differentiation of the criminal liability is treated as a basic direction of a criminally-legal policy which is mainly carried out by the legislator in sphere penalizatsii and depenalizatsii. The differentiation creates favorable conditions for a criminal liability individualization. As T.A.Lesnievski-Kostareva, it «two bowls on scales of a criminally-legal policy» and the zadachaugolovno-Policy of Law, in its opinion was expressed, consists in harmonising a combination of these spheres. [326]

Differentiation of responsibility of the persons who have committed crimes, L.L.Kruglikovopredeljaet both a general direction of a criminally-legal policy of Russia, and other states. [327]

Usually the differentiation of responsibility in the literature is understood kakee a partition, stratification or division into separate parts, kinds or forms, that is definition in the criminal law of various limits of responsibility. [328] in process differentsiatsiizakonodatel on the basis of the account of the significant and often meeting circumstances characterising a crime and the person guilty, defines possible limits of the criminal liability, establishes its various level, the realisation form in more or less typified kind. Differentiating the criminal liability, zakonodatelprovodit its division, a dosage taking into account significant circumstances, in rezultatechego as underlines L.L.Kruglikov, it is created wished for pravoprimenitelja a mode at a regulation of its kind and the size for particularly committed crime. [329] at definition of differentiation of responsibility of T.A.Lesnievski-Kostareva allocates two its aspects: As activity of the legislator and result of this activity. The author characterises differentiation as gradation of this responsibility in the criminal law which result depending on typical degree of the social danger of a crime and the person guilty is the establishment of various criminally-legal consequences. [330]

J.B.Melnikova in turn characterises differentiation of responsibility as an establishment in the criminal law of its various kinds, that is forms, volume, a measure. Unfortunately, it unfairly expands its bases, recognising as those character and degree of the social danger of a crime, the person guilty and the circumstances softening and aggravating punishment. [331] as a matter of fact, ponjatiemdifferentsiatsii it ohvatyvaetindividualizatsijuotvetstvennosti and punishments. Degree of the social danger of any crime and the person of each guilty is defined both typical, and individual signs. posledniezakonodatel has no possibility to consider at designing of corresponding norms and definition of limits of the criminal liability. Not mozhetzakonodatel to define also degree of influence softening and aggravating circumstances on limits of this responsibility, except for possibility of mitigation of punishment by item rules 62, 64 UK the Russian Federation and punishment aggravations according to item 68 UK the Russian Federation.

Level borders between differentiation and an individualization otvetstvennostii some other authors. [332] and meanwhile its allocation has basic value at definition of strategy of a criminally-legal policy and strategy of development of the criminal legislation.

The differentiation and criminal liability individualization are two interconnected phenomena or process, they nahodjatsjav unity and in close interaction. These are two steps of a concrete definition of the punitive measure or any other measure of criminally-legal character to the persons who have committed crimes. Therefore expansion or narrowing of borders of differentiation of responsibility causes, accordingly, narrowing or on the contrary expansion of sphere of its individualization. Definition of reasonable conformity between differentiation and a criminal liability individualization constitutes one of the important problems of the legislator. T.A.Lesnievski-Kostareva obosnovanno marks, what not nadoformulirovat absolutely certain sanctions or rather certain sanctions with excessively narrow frameworks, but at the same time are unacceptable also excessively wide frameworks concerning certain sanctions. If the first deprive of corresponding freedom of judges, vtoryesozdajut a condition for an arbitrariness. [333]

From our point of view, the differentiation of the criminal liability is not that other, as an establishment in the criminal law of distinctions between the bases, limits and forms realizatsiiotvetstvennosti, taking into account character and typical stepeniobshchestvennoj dangers of a crime and typical properties of the person of the guilty.

The differentiation of the criminal liability can be carried out by an establishment in the law of forms of its realisation and in the form of differentiation of typical punishment which is underlined in sanctions of norms of the criminal law. [334] in our opinion, it is not necessary to contrast differentiation of punishment of differentiation of responsibility, being based that ostensibly responsibility can be differentiated only, and punishment comes under only to an individualization. The differentiation of the criminal liability assumes differentiation of punishment, as punishment – a part of the maintenance of this responsibility. It comes under both differentiations, and an individualization.

The problem of the bases of differentiation of the criminal liability causes sharp disputes sometimes. Authors state various, neredkoprotivorechivye opinions. So, N.M.Kropachev the basis of differentiation of the criminal liability recognises the crime social danger, [335] M.S.Porojko – circumstances of business, [336] P.V.Korobeev – character and degree of the social danger of a crime and degree of the social danger of the person of the criminal [337].Ю.Б. Melnikova – character and degree of the social danger of the criminal trespass, the person guilty, softening and aggravating circumstances. [338] V.V. Sobolev – not individual (typical degree of the social danger of a crime and the person guilty), expressed within the sanction of norms of the criminal law. [339] according to L.L.Kruglikov, as the basis of differentiation of the criminal liability character and typical degree of the social danger of a crime acts. Thus typical characteristics of the person of the guilty have essential value also. [340] in essence, the same opinion T.A.Lesnievski-Kostareva who designates character and typical degree of the social danger of a crime and the person of the guilty as the basis adhered also. [341] further, the truth, it has a little changed the position, having declared, that character of the social danger and individual degree of the social danger sodejannogo are not the bases of differentiation of the criminal liability. Character of the social danger is the basis of an establishment of the criminal liability, and individual degree of the social danger sodejannogo forms the basis of an individualization of responsibility. We consider [342] last conclusion proved, and as to character of the social danger as the qualitative characteristic of a crime it is not necessary to contrast it sodejannomu. The criminal liability basis in the item 8 UK the Russian Federation admits fulfilment of act which contains all elements essential to the offence, provided in UK. From here its basis cannot be reduced to any, let and rather important, the crime characteristic, including to character of its social danger. Critically estimating evolution of sights on T.A.Lesnievski-Kostarevoj, L.L.Kruglikov's given question specifies, that, differentiating acts within the limits of Special part UK the Russian Federation, placing them in certain sequence (including rather each other), the legislator not simply orders a standard material, noi that samymrealizuet within possible differentiation of responsibility. [343] as the grouping of crimes is carried out on sections of Special part UK the Russian Federation, as its basis the character of the social danger shown first of all in an orientation of criminal actions acts. Grouping crimes, the legislator simultaneously spends also differentiation of the criminal liability. For example, for crimes against person, especially for criminal actions against a life and health, sexual inviolability and a sexual personal freedom, more strict sanctions, rather than for many other things of a crime located in other sections of Special part UK the Russian Federation are defined.

From these positions there is problematic an arrangement of structures of ecological crimes in UK RF.S the account of special value for each person and the population as a whole their environment followed izlozhitv independent section (after section VIII «Crimes in economy sphere»). It is conventional, that environment is the ability to live basis, necessary attribute of normal economic activities of functioning of public and state structures. However, despite increase of interest to an ecological problematics, the mankind does not up to the end realise yet exclusive importance of an environment for its present and the future. Such underestimation (if to mean a place of ecological crimes) is characteristic for UK Russia and many other things the states. So, §6 «Crimes against preservation of the environment» it is located in chapter 6 UK the Peoples Republic of China after crimes against the control over cultural values (§ 4) and crimes against public public health services (§5). Whether cultural values and environment are unequivocal on the social importance? Not denying the importance of cultural values, nevertheless the negative answer here is quite natural. How much obosnovanno at first to regulate responsibility for crimes against public public health services, and then against environment which predetermines a basis of health of the population? Here too the answer should be negative.

Punishable acts against environment in UK Germany are unsuccessfully placed. Responsibility for them is provided in penultimate section (29). In the last (30) section responsibility for acts on service is regulated.

Structures of crimes against environment in head XXIIУК of Poland – after crimes against the State, against a life and health and against the general safety are more successfully placed. In the same vremjavoznikaet a question concerning a place of crimes against traffic safety; they precede in UK Poland to crimes against environment.

The place of crimes against environment in system of Special part UK the Russian Federation, irrespectively to differentiation of typical punishment, in our opinion, should reflect the social importance of the given object criminally-right protection.

If to compare limits of the criminal liability for crimes against environment to relatives to objective and subjective signs the crimes breaking special safety rules for those and other crimes the legislator regulates, as a matter of fact, identical limits of punishment and, accordingly, the criminal liability, and in some norms defines more strict sanctions for infringements of special safety rules. For example, for reduction in worthlessness of oil pipelines, oil pipelines and the gas pipelines, entailed on imprudence death of the person or other heavy consequences (ch. 3 items 2153 UK the Russian Federation), and earth damage (ch. 3 items 254 UK the Russian Federation) though the same punishments are provided, however for the first crime can be appointed imprisonment for the term up to 8 years, and for the second – till 5 years. Not belittling, especially not ignoring the social danger of the crimes interfaced to infringement of special safety rules, we will notice, that crimes against environment which attract on imprudence, say, death of the person, human lives, from here and sanctions for them as an embodiment of limits of the criminal liability, should be more or, at least, not less strict are characterised by the raised social danger in connection with exclusive social value of their specific object and, of course. Character of the social danger first of all defines differentiation of the criminal liability, acts as its basic criterion.

As the basis (criterion) of differentiation of the criminal liability some authors (P.V.Korobeev, T.A.Lesnievski-Kostareva, etc.) name degree of the social danger of the person guilty. It is represented to us, that at its differentiation the legislator considers also such properties of the person guilty which do not characterise degree of its social danger, for example, the sex, age, a state of health, presence in charge of juvenile children, etc. Thereupon preferable is L.L.Kruglikov's [344] recognising with a basis of differentiation of the criminal liability character and typical degree of the social danger of a crime and typical characteristics of the person guilty position (and not just degree of its social danger).

In respect of a regulation of the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment, the question on kinds of differentiation of the criminal liability for their fulfilment is important also. More in details its kinds are considered by L.L.Kruglikov. On a so-called vertical the author vydeljaetdifferentsiatsiju: 1) obshchepravovuju; 2) the interbranch; 3) branch, including criminally-legal; 4) carried out within the limits of section, head UK, institute of the punishment, separate norms about responsibility for concrete kinds of crimes. [345] if obshchepravovaja the differentiation reflects the general contours of the subsequent kinds of differentiation the interbranch differentiation of responsibility for the crimes connected with pollution of objects of an environment, urged to provide continuity disciplinary, administrative and the criminal liability for the acts encroaching on these objects.

Certainly, the basic place in the criminal legislation is occupied with differentiation of the criminal liability. Thus it is possible to allocate two kinds: differentiations: 1) on the basis of norms of General part UK the Russian Federation and 2) on the basis of norms Especial parts UK the Russian Federation. The differentiation of responsibility in UK regardless to character of crimes can be reflected the Russian Federation in the following scheme.




In General part UK the Russian Federation the differentiation of responsibility for the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment, is carried out by: 1) an interdiction of appointment of punishments concerning separate categories of persons (minor, pregnant women, invalid, persons are more senior 65 years, etc.) ; 2) regulations of categories of crimes with all following from here to consequences; 3) distinctions in responsibility of accomplices of a crime; 4) definitions of kinds of punishments and their maintenance, ustanovlenijaminimalnyh and the maximum terms or the sizes; 5) regulations of the basic and additional kinds of punishments; 6) ustanovlenijaosnovanija awardings punishment in the form of deprivation special, military or an honorary title, a class rank and the state awards; 7) naznachenijaosuzhdennym to imprisonment of kinds correctional facilities; 8) regulations of signs of the relapse, dangerous relapse and expecially dangerous relapse; 9) softening or strengthenings of terms or the size of punishment taking into account special rules of its appointment; 10) regulations of possibilities of probation and the bases of its cancellation; 11) regulations of two versions of a delay of enduring the punishment; 12) definitions of the bases and conditions of application of is conditional-preschedule clearing of enduring the punishment; 13) replacements of not left part of punishment with softer kind of punishment; 14) clearings of punishment in connection with conditions change; 15) regulations of possibility of reduction of the sentence or its replacement with softer kind of punishment on amnesty; 16) mitigations of punishment under the pardon, etc.

Today the requirement of differentiation of the criminal liability concerning the crimes guilty of fulfilment connected with pollution of objects of environment, depending on is not realised, whether is ended corresponding prestuplenieposkolku in item 250 – 252 and 254 UK the Russian Federations are provided such structures according to which in the absence of corresponding consequences the specified acts do not admit crimes. And infringement of the legislation of the Russian Federation about a continental shelf and about the exclusive economic area of the Russian Federation concerns crimes with formal structure. Therefore the given crime can admit ended.

Responsibility for considered crimes and depending on fault forms is not differentiated in UK the Russian Federation. The majority of them can be made as deliberately, and on imprudence. And responsibility for them is established without differentiation of typical punishment. As already it was marked above, in a number of the states (Austria, Poland, etc.) responsibility for crimes against environment is differentiated depending on, whether they are made deliberately or on imprudence. For the last the smaller volume of the criminal liability is provided.

To the given circumstance obosnovanno has paid attention I.V. The priests, offered as required to bring instructions on the fault form in norms of chapter 26 UK the Russian Federation. Thus the differentiation of the criminal liability and punishment can be carried out by reference of the acts made on imprudence, in a separate part of article or by introduction in UK the Russian Federation the separate article providing responsibility for careless crimes against an environment. [346]

In our opinion, it is more preferable to add articles 250 – 252 and 254 UK the Russian Federation with independent parts in which responsibility for the corresponding acts made on imprudence would be regulated.

Other kind of differentiation of the criminal liability consists in its gradation in norms of Special part UK the Russian Federation. Certainly, it is realised (there where it is provided) suchetom positions of General part UK the Russian Federation. And this viddifferentsiatsii responsibility is carried out at several levels. As is known, the legislator klassifitsiruetprestuplenija, meting in certain sequence and this most not only orders, but also partly carries out differentiation. According to L.L.Kruglikov, it concerns not only the basic differentiation within the limits of a triad «the person – a society – the state», but also to an establishment of separate sections, heads, definition within everyone the head of concrete groups of crimes, and also to an arrangement of structures of crimes of one classification group rather each other in process of decrease or increase of level of the social danger of acts. [347] As to structure of section IX UK the Russian Federation at first, that is in chapter 24, responsibility for more grave crimes against the public safety, av the subsequent – for other crimes encroaching on this patrimonial object is defined, including and ecological crimes. Rather arrangements of structures of the crimes interfaced to pollution of objects natural sredyv to chapter 26 UK the Russian Federation the given law not always is looked through. Taking into account comparison of the sanctions provided in this chapter of norms, it is possible to draw a conclusion, that the legislator considers as more dangerous to a society illegal cabin of wood plantings (ch. 3 items 260 UK the Russian Federation) either destruction or damage of wood plantings (ch. 4 items 261 UK the Russian Federation), rather than the pollution of the waters which have entailed on imprudence death of the person, atmosphere pollution, damage of the earth with the same consequence (see ch. 3 items 250, ch. 3 items 251, ch. 3 items 252, ch. 3 items 254 UK the Russian Federation).s The impression is made, that the legislator aspired to provide protection of economic interests in a prime order. It is represented to us, that it is necessary to enhance the responsibility for some ecological crimes, though as a whole a line of a regulation of crimes in chapter 26 UK the Russian Federation from more dangerous to less dangerous is sustained.

It is necessary for one of ways of differentiation of the criminal liability to recognise an establishment of its limits by means of a regulation of various sanctions on the character: is relative-defined, alternative and cumulative (the last combine the basic and additional kinds of punishments), and also on the basis of compulsion or optionality of appointment of additional punishments. Feature of sanctions for the crimes connected with environmental contamination, they consist that simultaneously javljajutsjaotnositelno-defined, alternative, and some of them and cumulative.

In sanctions of norms UK the Russian Federation the legislator reflects character and typical degree of the social danger of crimes. It is possible to recognise the given level of differentiation of the criminal liability as the core, it consists in gradation of responsibility taking into account signs of the basic structures of crimes, that is a parity of its borders with responsibility for other acts, first of all for the crimes encroaching on the same specific and group objects, and also taking into account qualifying or privilegirujushchih signs.

R.J.Smirnov fairly as criteria (bases) of differentiation of the criminal liability within the limits of Special part UK the Russian Federation at first priznaetharakter, and then typical degree of the social danger of crimes. [348]

The differentiation of responsibility in norms of Special part UK the Russian Federation is mainly spent naosnove objective and subjective signs of the basic structures of crimes and taking into account qualifying signs. For example, on the basis of object of an encroachment limits of responsibility for the crimes provided in various sections UK the Russian Federation are established; we will admit, its one limits are established for crimes against person, others – against the property, the third – against the public safety and a public order. Deepening differentiation of the criminal liability, the legislator then spends her on the basis of specific object of the criminal trespass of inside already corresponding sections UK the Russian Federation. In particular, (chapter 24) and ecological crimes (chapter 26) defines razlichnyepredely responsibility for crimes against the public safety. In too time we will notice, that, as a matter of fact, the identical volume of the criminal liability is defined for ecological crimes, on the one hand, and the criminal actions interfaced to infringement of special safety rules, with another (it is unconditional, at presence more or less identical typical signs – forms of fault, a way of fulfilment of crimes, criminal consequences, etc.) Then the differentiation of the criminal liability is spent on the basis of allocation of separate groups of crimes in their specific accessory. For example, for the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment without qualifying signs, smaller limits of the criminal liability, rather than for crimes with the general structures of ecological crimes (item 246-249 UK the Russian Federation), and also for the crimes provided ch are established. 1 items 2581, ch. 1 items 259, ch. 1 items 260 and ch. 1 items 261 UK RF.Vmeste with that for the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment, are provided the same sanctions, as for infringement of the legislation of the Russian Federation about a continental shelf and about the exclusive economic area of the Russian Federation (item 253 UK the Russian Federation), infringement of rules of protection of water biological resources (item 257 UK the Russian Federation), infringement of a mode of especially protected natural territories and natural objects (item 262 UK the Russian Federation).h That for separate ecological crimes with the basic structure is established bolshy responsibility volume in comparison with criminal actions analyzed by us (ch is characteristic also. 1 items 2581, ch. 1 items 260, etc.) Quite naturally there is a question about sravneniistepeni the social danger of pollution of waters (ch. 1 items 250 UK the Russian Federation), atmosphere pollution (ch. 1 items 251 UK the Russian Federation), pollution of the sea environment (ch. 1 items 252 UK the Russian Federation) and earth damage (ч.1 item 254 UK the Russian Federation), on the one hand, and illegal cabin of wood plantings (ch. 1 items 260 UK the Russian Federation) for which it is provided, besides the punishments established for encroachments against objects of environment, and imprisonment. The legislator it is free or involuntarily prime care shows about economic interests, that as it was already marked, it was characteristic to the former domestic criminal legislation. Certainly, the harm caused by pollution of atmosphere, not always predmeten or is visible, as it is shown at illegal cabin of wood plantings, however it, obviously is more dangerous as can cause mass diseases of people, as though gradually, constantly to undermine their health, to worsen a population genofund. Limits of the criminal liability for pollution of objects of the lifeless nature without qualifying signs, in our opinion, should not be below responsibility for illegal cabin of wood plantings. This conclusion was supported by respondents in the course of interviewing (the appendix 3 see).

The gradation of responsibility on the basis of signs of the basic structures of crimes should be spent and in corresponding groups. Under the general rule limits of responsibility for the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment, coincide, however here imejutsjanekotorye exceptions. So, for pollution of waters, either atmospheres, or the sea environment without qualifying circumstances arrest (and term is differentiated from three about four months) is established, and for damage of the earth it is not provided. For damage of the earth and pollution of sea предусмотреныисправительные environment of work for the term up to two years, while for pollution of waters (ch. 1 items 250 UK the Russian Federation) and atmosphere pollution (ch. 1 items 251 UK the Russian Federation) they are established for the term up to one year. The legislator, probably, considers that as subjects of damage of the earth and pollution of the sea environment the persons who are engaged in land tenure or carrying out sea transportations act, therefore and such typical punishment, as correctional labour for term not till one year, and till two years is provided. We will underline, that or atmosphere also soprjagaetsjas, etc. From here the approach of the legislator to differentiation of responsibility for considered crimes hardly it is possible to recognise pollution of waters as misbehaviour of corresponding categories of workers or heads of the enterprises, the organisations correct.

It is necessary to tell about differentiation of responsibility for pollution of waters or the sea environment. So, for pollution of the sea environment the raised responsibility in comparison with pollution of waters is established. In ch. 1 items 250 and ch. 1 items 252 UK the Russian Federation are established not the identical sizes of the penalty, terms of obligatory works and correctional labour. Thereupon it is possible to call into question the raised limits of the criminal liability for pollution of the sea environment in comparison with pollution of waters. We will admit, pollution of waters of the river of Volga on which coast there are tens cities, lives 40 % of the population, is concentrated about 50 % of the enterprises of the industry and agriculture, and the Volga pool thus occupies only 8 % of territory of Russia, [349] can cause much heavier consequences, rather than pollution of the sea environment kept away from the coastal states. With reference to differentiation of responsibility for pollution of the sea environment, from our point of view, it is necessary to recognise that there is the sea environment which has been kept away from coast of the corresponding states, coastal waters and, at last, the unique sea environment, for example the seas of Arctic ocean, the Antarctic waters, Caspian sea. The given sign sleduetpolozhit in a basis of differentiation of responsibility for pollution of the sea environment. It is impossible, besides, to contrast in respect of an estimation of the social danger pollution of waters and pollution of the sea environment.

Unfortunately, there is no necessary sequence in differentiation of responsibility for pollution of objects of environment depending on the come socially dangerous consequences. So, for pollution of waters (ch. 1 item 250 UK the Russian Federation) it is provided in case of causing of essential harm to an animal or flora, fish stocks or agriculture, while for atmosphere pollution (ch. 1 items 251 UK the Russian Federation) – when these acts have entailed pollution or other change of natural properties of air, and for earth damage (ch. 1 items 254 UK the Russian Federation) – only at injury to health of the person or environment. In the basic structures of pollution of objects of environment, in our opinion, it is necessary to unify socially dangerous consequences in a certain measure as atmosphere pollution also can cause injury to health of people, to an animal and flora (acid rains, etc.) Therefore in ch. 1 items 251 UK the Russian Federation as consequences neobhodimoukazat on causing of essential harm to an animal, flora or agriculture.

At a regulation of pollution of the sea environment in ch. 1 item 252 UK the Russian Federation is provided responsibility for the fact of fulfilment of the actions which have caused pollution of the sea environment, and in ч.2 and 3 these articles the legislator differentiates it depending on approach of corresponding consequences.

The significant and consecutive differentiation of the criminal liability is carried out by the legislator by a regulation qualifying (privilegirujushchih) signs. On the given basis the differentiation of responsibility within versions of the same crime under the scheme is spent: the basic structure – the qualified structure – especially qualified structure. Thus differentiation of responsibility for pollution obektovokruzhajushchej sredyprovoditsja the legislator on the basis of the come consequences and a place of fulfilment of these criminal actions.

At a regulation of investigated structures of crimes which are similar enough to objective and subjective signs, the domestic legislator, unfortunately, supposes certain inconsistency. So, as a part of pollution of the sea environment it is underlined a sign of causing of essential harm to health of the person (ch. 2 items 252 UK the Russian Federation), and in structures of pollution of waters (ch. 2 items 250 UK the Russian Federation) and atmospheres (ch. 2 items 251 UK the Russian Federation) are used by a sign of injury to health of the person. In ch. 1 item 254 UK the Russian Federation injury to health of the person appears not in qualified, and vosnovnom structure of damage of the earth. In our opinion, for such divergences at a formulation of this sign there are no good causes. In ch. 2 items 252 UK the Russian Federation instead of causing of essential harm to health of the person nadoukazat on injury to health of the person, and in the item 254 UK the Russian Federation injury to health of the person to transform from a sign of the basic structure to a sign qualifying it, having provided it in ch. 2 given articles. If pollution of waters, atmospheres and earth damage (ch. 1 items 250,251 and 254 UK the Russian Federation) act as material structures pollution of the sea environment is designed as formal structure, therefore it admits completed crime from the moment of fulfilment of the act.

With a view of more consecutive differentiation of the criminal liability it is expedient dopolnituk the Russian Federation structure of pollution of waters, atmosphere and damage of the earth, the person creating threat to life, mass diseases of people, causing of essential harm to an animal and flora or approaches of other heavy consequences. As obosnovanno writes I.V. Priests it is represented rather reasonable to protect a society from the possibility of injury to the nature and the person, considering so high social danger of these crimes. [350] besides, if in structures of infringement of special safety rules (the item 215 – 2171 UK the Russian Federation) responsibility is graduated depending on causing on imprudence of death to one person or two and more persons, in structures of pollution of objects of environment especially qualifying sign admits causing on imprudence of death of the person, that is for qualification sodejannogo has no value quantity of persons to which the death has been caused. Such divergence at a formulation of qualifying signs of these structures is not caused by any weighty circumstances. Therefore item 250 – 252 and 254 UK the Russian Federation, in our opinion, it is necessary to add with a part 4 following maintenances: «the Acts provided by parts of first or second present article, entailed on imprudence death of two and more persons».

<< | >>
A source: Bokovnja Alexander Jurevna. RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLLUTION of OBJECTS of ENVIRONMENT In CRIMINAL LAW of Russia. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Kazan. 2016

More on topic § 1. Differentiation of the criminal liability for the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment:

  1. the CHAPTER the THIRD. DIFFERENTIATION CRIMINAL OTVETSVENNOSTI And the PUNISHMENT INDIVIDUALIZATION FOR the CRIMES CONNECTED With POLLUTION of OBJECTS of ENVIRONMENT, ON UK the Russian Federation
  2. §2. Concept and the general criminally-legal characteristic of the crimes connected with pollution of objects of environment
  3. § 3. A regulation of the criminal liability for pollution of objects of environment in history of the legislation of Russia
  4. the CHAPTER the SECOND. The LEGAL ANALYSIS of STRUCTURES of the CRIMES CONNECTED With POLLUTION of OBJECTS of ENVIRONMENT
  5. §4. Responsibility for pollution of objects of environment under the criminal legislation of the foreign states
  6. Chapter 3. Differentiation of the criminal liability for economic crimes in criminal law of Russia and England
  7. § 1. Differentiation of the criminal liability: concept, kinds, means and their application at a regulation in UK the Russian Federation economic crimes
  8. § 2. Punishment for pollution of objects of environment and its individualization court
  9. Bokovnja Alexander Jurevna. RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLLUTION of OBJECTS of ENVIRONMENT In CRIMINAL LAW of Russia. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Kazan, 2016 2016
  10. § 1. Differentiation of crimes against an environment among themselves
  11. CHAPTER 5. DIFFERENTIATION OF CRIMES AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT AMONG THEMSELVES, AND ALSO THEM OTGRANICHENIE FROM OTHER CRIMES AND ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS
  12. § 4. Differentiation of the criminal liability for illegal circulation prekursorov narcotics or psychotropic substances
  13. ZL. Problems of differentiation of the criminal liability for distribution kriminogennoj information
  14. the Chapter III. DIFFERENTIATION of LIMITS of the CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR GRANTING of the FALSE INFORMATION DANGEROUS TO the CRIMINAL TRIAL, In the LEGISLATION of Russia, the COUNTRIES of CONTINENTAL Europe And the USA
  15. § 2. Features of the modern criminal legislation of the foreign countries regulating clearing of the criminal liability on affairs about crimes in sphere of economic activities
  16. § 1.1. The Criminal liability for the acts connected with dangerous operation of vehicles, in the General law states
  17. § 2. Perfection of sanctions for a crime provided by item 258.1 UK the Russian Federation, with a view of differentiation of the criminal liability
  18. CHAPTER 3. PROBLEMS of DIFFERENTIATION of the CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR DISTRIBUTION KRIMINOGENNOJ of the INFORMATION And QUALIFICATION of THESE ACTS
  19. § 2.1. The Criminal liability for the acts connected with dangerous operation of vehicles, in the legislation of the states of the Continental law