formation and development of institute of an error and its theoretical substantiation in the romano-German criminal law

Serious researches of an error in criminal law are dated the end XVIII - nach. XX centuries It is created the base to the further studying the problems which have become by criminally-legal classics works of A.Bernera, K.Bindinga, H.Gelshnera, R background Gippelja, E.Kolrausha, F a background of Sheet, K.Rejna, A.Fejerbaha, G.Eberlina (Geberlina, Heberlina) and nek.

Other [70]

In the Russian criminally-legal doctrine special research of an error and its value at imputation of act of the person to it in fault has been carried out by I.Z.Gellerom1. However and other authors in published both in earlier, and in later the periods works the attention of the meant was paid


To problem. It is remarkable, that questions of an error and its value communicated mainly with the theory of fault [71 [72] [73]. Such approach became traditional for the Russian criminal law.

Before to pass to consideration of approaches to the error, generated practically at the beginning of origin of the corresponding theory, it is necessary to address to the legislative guidelines, concerning a matter interesting us.

In criminal laws of the states belonging to the romano-German legal system, they began to appear mainly in XIX centuries It, in particular, Bavarian UK 1813, Braunshvejsky UK 1831 g, Hanover UK 1841, Giessen UK 1841, the Norwegian Criminal code of 1842, the Criminal code of the German empire of 1871, the Criminal code of Hungary 1878, the Criminal code of the Italian kingdom of 1890

So, for example, in item 44 of Italian Ulozhenija the establishment concerning only of the legal error which was reduced to that nobody can be justified by ignorance of the law contained. To the error in law it was devoted and § 57 Norwegian Ulozhenija where it has been defined, that if the person at act fulfilment was mistaken concerning illegality of the last the appointed punishment can be below the minimum established in the law, or application of punishment of other kind is possible even. Such reservation (sic Here contained!): if the court does not find, that the subject owing to this error should be absolutely released from наказания1.

In Hanover UK 1841 the exception of the general rule that nobody can be justified by ignorance of the law too has been made. It admitted possible, «when on valid ignorance the person considered


The act permitted »(item 84 item 6).

In German and Hungarian Ulozhenijah the attention to the factual error was paid. § 59 the first of the named laws defined, that «if who, at fulfilment of punishable act, did not know about existence of actual facts (das Vorhandensein von Tatumstanden), belonging to its lawful structure or increasing punishability these circumstances to it are not made. For punishability of careless acts this decision matters only in cases when the ignorance was not posled -


stviem imprudence ».

Similar position on sense has been formulated in § 82 Ulozhenija Hungary [74 [75] [76] [77].

Positions about such version of the factual error as an error in committing a crime means, contained the Hanover criminal code (§ 40), Giessen UK (§ 67) and Braunshvejgsky UK (§ 30). The named laws recognised nenakazuemost applications of unusable means at committing a crime in that case when on nerazumiju or from superstitious error such means which under any conditions could not serve for purpose achievement have been selected.

A number of criminal codes - Vjurtembergsky 1839 (item 72), Badensky 1845 (item 110, 111), Braunshvejgsky 1840 (item 43), Ljutsernsky 1836 (item 38) and the Italian 1890 (items 536) - in case of the use of unusable means believed (item 40), Darmshtadsky 1841 to punish (item 67), the Zurich 1835 for attempt, and three first provided the same approach primenitelno and to worthlessness cases предмета1.

Austrian UK recognised as nonpunishable an imaginary crime which assumed an encroachment on unusable object 1787. § 8 UK in this connection demanded, that the person having malicious intention, has undertaken the act leading to the valid execution conceived, that it was excluded as a result of an imaginary crime [78 [79] [80].

Establishments concerning an error contained as well two Russian criminal codes - the Penal code of criminal and corrective 1845 and the Criminal code of 1903

However we will notice, that in Russia and during earlier historical periods the legislator paid attention to an error (at least, legal). So, in particular, corresponding position contained in Peter I Senatu's special instructions concerning action of the Article of Military 1715: «the Lord the Senate, I send you the book"Army regulations"... And ponezhe this though with the basis of military people, however concerns and to all representatives zemskih as from this see. That day when will print dispatch proportions... Also on provinces and offices that ignorance


Nobody plead (my italics - A.P.) ». The allocated establishment directly concerns the legal error or as it still was called, to the error in law.

It is necessary to recognise as development of the specified position containing in Catherine II Order the requirement, that «laws should be pisany a simple language; and ulozhenie, all laws in itself containing, should be knigoju rather upotrebitelnoju and which for the small price to get it would be possible like the abc-book... Crimes will be not so frequent, than bolshee number of people ulozhenie to read and understand begin. And for this purpose to order it is necessary, that at all schools learnt children to the reading and writing alternately from church books and from those books which contain the legislation» (item 158 gl. X «About obrjad krimi - nalnago vessels») 1.

In the arch of the Basic state laws (in the edition of 1906) in the chapter of the ninth «About zakonah» in item 95 (earlier - item 62) position that «nobody can plead ignorance of the law when it has been promulgated by the established order» [81 [82] contained. The conclusion followed From such establishment about absence of influence of the legal error connected with the ignorance of law, on the decision of a question on responsibility for sodejannoe: the person not informed on a corresponding interdiction came under to punishment for the committed crime in accordance with general practice.

I.Neumann in this connection wrote, that the ignorance of the law does not cancel punishment imposing on the criminal for for deduction not one only it, but for the prevention of the acts all in general breaking safety in the state, it (punishment) is established and should be imposed «kak soon tokmo the crime» will be made. Besides, action of punishments cannot depend on one casual circumstance, «kotorago at tom never lzja and to find s polnoju достовЬрностію: izvstno was to the criminal or nt узаконеніе, which opredleno наказаніе for преступленіе im sdlannoe» [83]. As we see, «ignorantia legis (juris) neminem excusat» the author did not suppose any exceptions of a rule, expressing full solidarity with the law.

In the Penal code of 1845 about an error there was a speech to item 4 of item 98 located in the chapter third «About definition of punishments on crimes», branch the first «About definition of punishments in general and circumstances at which sodejannoe it is not charged, podotdelenii II« About the reasons on which sodejannoe should not be charged »2. The norm established, that one of the reasons on which sodejannoe it should not be charged, the error casual or owing to a deceit acts. More developed position has been formulated in item 105 (item 99 of subsequent editions Ulozhenija), saying:« Who will make something illegal is unique on made, from a random error or owing to a deceit to an event, ignorance of those circumstances from which its act has addressed in illegal, to that sodejannoe by it is not charged. It can, however in some cases, the law defined, to be awarded to a church repentance ».

Ulozhenie 1845 in connection with entering into it of considerable volume of changes and additions "has gone through" three new editions - in 1857, 1866 and 1885. The specified editions contained item 115 saying: «When at attempted crime by defendant everything is made, that he considered it necessary for reduction of the intention in execution, and deliberate it angrily was not made only on especial, not predvidennym by it to circumstances or owing to harmlessness of the used means (my italics - A.P.) it is exposed, affairs depending on the circumstances, to punishment...». Thus, the attempt cash admitted and when criminal consequences have not come on harmlessness used uchinitelem means, that is as a result of anything other, as errors in means.

Interest represents the note to item 115 Ulozhenija, containing position that attempt is absent at the use guilty on extreme ignorance or superstition «means, quite and obviously void for committing a crime» (as that: whisperings, slanders, spells, etc.). Such person was punished for criminal intention on the basis of item 111 Ulozhenija containing a following establishment: «Expressed in words or in writing or found out any action intention to commit a crime, is punished for this as for criminal intention» 1. In the given situation as it is visible, it was a question of application at committing a crime of absolutely unusable means, that according to operating criminal law nenakazuemo as it can be regarded only as intention detection.

In item 1456 Ulozhenija (in red. 1885) the following has been fixed: «Who, having intention to put to someone the death, instead of this person, by an error or other case, will take life another, that is inflicted to that punishment to what, on the basis of pregoing 1449 - 1455 articles, it would be forced to undergo if has destroyed that for which life it had intention» [84 [85].

Thus, in given article it was a question of one of displays of such factual error, as an error in object (is more exact, in the person of the victim). From its maintenance murder of other person follows, that, than was supposed, punished in accordance with general practice.

More accurate establishment of the general character concerning an error contained in the Criminal code 1903 [86] It has been formulated in item 43 of the fourth branch «About conditions of imputation and criminality of acts» (chapter 1 «About criminal actions and punishments in general»), saying: «the Ignorance of circumstance by which the criminality of act is caused or which strengthens responsibility, eliminates imputation in fault of the act or circumstance strengthening responsibility.

At careless acts this rule is not applied, if the ignorance was a consequence of negligence guilty ».

Besides, item 47 Ulozhenija formulated position about unusable attempt: «the act directed on a subject nonexistent or obviously unusable for riot of that sort of criminal action which is planned» is not esteemed criminal. As a matter of fact, it is a factual error special case - errors in a subject. It is remarkable, that presence of the named kind of an error excluded act criminality. At the same time in the criminal law theory the given question dared not so unequivocally about what it will be told further.

Thus, in both Ulozhenijah it was a question of the factual error, concerning legal any positions did not contain. At the same time in the explanatory note to the Criminal code project it has been specified: «Ignorance legal, i.e. Ignorance of criminality and zapreshchennosti the made act 2 ch. Item 35 (corresponding in the project to article 43) does not concern (my italics - A.P.); in an express provision kind in this subject of item 62 of laws of the cores, the reference of the defendant that he did not know that the act made by it is not forbidden by the law, can have any influence on its responsibility, but through it the right convicted is not eliminated to refer that, on circumstances of business, he not only did not know, but also could not know forbidden ™ made so its act should be considered as casual» \

So, in the Russian criminal legislation of the corresponding period some positions, concerning errors have been presented. At the same time attracts attention excessive laconicism and odnostoronnost its legislative regulation (the truth, in the subsequent Russian laws, including operating UK the Russian Federation, is absent also such). At the same time scarcity of the law has not prevented working out of rather thorough and all-round theory of an error in the Russian criminally-legal doctrine of the named period.

As the supervising principle underlying studying of the named phenomenon, position admitted, that the error should influence punishability as essential change in mood of the operating subject is connected with it [87 [88]. Thus, as it is a question of «mood of the operating subject», it is possible to conclude once again, that the error communicated, basically, with the fault theory, that as it was already marked, it was peculiar to the majority of authors.

At the same time there was also other approach. So, h.p. Belogrits-Kotlyarevsky considered ignorance and an error in system of the reasons excluding criminality of act. Its theory of an error differed an originality about what it will be told more low.

All authors unanimously allocated two versions of an error - legal and actual.

As it was already marked, concerning the legal error the general rule, reduced to that ignorantia legis (juris) neminem excusat operated. However it is impossible to forget, that the right admitted the explanatory note to the project of the Criminal code of 1903 convicted to refer that on circumstances of business he not only did not know, but also could not know forbidden ™ the made. It was considered as the basis for a recognition made by casual act. Similar positions met and in a number of foreign UK, on what was specified above. At the same time in the criminally-legal doctrine all looked much more difficult. Its representatives were not so unanimous in definition of value of the legal error.

Still A.Fejerbah, allocating fault under the ignorance of law, consisting in omission of acquisition of data on the law, to which external act confronts (recognising, thus, punishability of such act), nevertheless, to the private conditions excluding responsibility, carried «innocent error or ignorance in a life reasoning nakazatelnogo the law in general or concerning business leading under this» 1. The researcher connected such error with pardonable defects of comprehension of the legal validity, specifying: «If the person really used the forces of knowledge for acquisition of knowledge from which non-existence there was a crime its ignorance or error was innocent, insuperable


(error, ignorantia invincibilis) when it still for all that has not got on -


Knowledge in general or true knowledge ». Thus, the author supposed possibility of an exception of punishability of perfect act in the presence of the legal error.

0 volume, that a rule «ignorantia juris simper nocet» is not unconditional, and the presumption of knowledge of the law cannot be recognised «praesumptio juris et de jure», wrote also K.Rejn [89 [90] [91] [92].

S.Budzinsky, arguing on legal error (or ignorance of the law), defined them as false understanding of a known rule of the criminal law or ignorance by the law of the given act operating about prohibition. Essentially in these situations, the author notices, that the person did not know about illegality of its act. It is thus indifferent, why it did not know it: whether therefore, that to it the law was not known, or because though it and knew the law, but believed, that the given case does not approach under it. According to the basic theory about a crime, about the retaliatory power and about the relation between a crime and punishable act, specifies S.Budzinsky, knowledge of the law an essential condition of illegality of act is recognised to be not могут1.

The author results interesting argument of the position taken by it. Under its statement, wines and punishability exist to the charter edition: punishability of known acts is independent of commands of the legislator. S.Budzinsky writes: « It is excessive to resort to legal fiction, to the assumption, that the law properly promulgated, after given time, is known for all. Though the state also is obliged to explain to all citizens properly that it intends to punish however punishment is applied not because the guilty knew about prohibition of its act that is why, that it is opposite to the purposes of the state and its laws because guilty has contrasted the will with a will of a society, to the public benefit. That is opposite to the purposes of the state and the public benefit, about that approximately knows in a civilised society everyone, even less formed. From the legend he learns, that angrily also that kindly; the criminal law only consecrates this legend when it agree to it forbids known acts. If sometimes the law in dissonance with the legend, and contrary to it considers known acts not concordant with a public order and imposes on them punishments; Almost everyone knows that about prohibition of such acts, for data on that quickly extend »[93 [94]. Certainly, it is impossible to recognise last judgement indisputable, especially if the legislation is difficult and dynamical.

Presented above S.Budzinskogo's reasoning, apparently, should lead the author to a conclusion about certainty of non-recognition juridiche - skoj errors as the circumstance excluding responsibility for sodejannoe. However, it all the same does the reservation, that judiciary practice, nevertheless, specifies in cases in which it is necessary to recognise the ignorance of law as circumstance of excusing property. But it is necessary to give the permission of such situations to the discretion of the judge, not having transformed corresponding possibility to the general правило1.

Referring confirming to the conclusion to judiciary practice, including foreign, the author results an interesting example. In France the peasant with assistance of two neighbours has killed the son afflicted with water fear owing to a sting of a mad dog. Uchiniteli referred on existing in that district for a long time custom on which such mad people killed. They knew, that it is impossible to kill anybody on pain of punishment; but believed, that it does not concern the given case.

G ovorja about such versions of the legal error as the error concerning size of punishment or the circumstances strengthening fault, S.Budzinsky specifies, that the similar cannot have any value. If the person has committed a crime, realising its illegality, it comes under «to the punishment defined by the law, despite the fact that, whether he believed, that this or that punishment threatens it, that this or that circumstance increases punishment. Otherwise application of this or that rule of the law would depend not on court, a from guilty» [95 [96].

N.S.Tagantsev, recognising, that in legislations of the majority of the states the ignorance of law (error iuris) does not admit the circumstance having the jural significance at the decision of a question on responsibility of the person, committed a crime, nevertheless, pays attention to the opinion which has extended in the European doctrine that position «ignorantia juris semper nocet», «spent with relentless sequence, brings in criminal law a formalism contradicting the nature of the criminal liability» 1.

Supposing possibility of the account of the reference to the ignorance of law as on the circumstance excluding the criminal liability, N.S.Tagantsev underlines, that the jural significance can be given only to the reference to the ignorance of law, but in no event the reference to it, in opinion uchinitelja, unreasonableness. According to the author, the ignorance excludes responsibility for a deliberate encroachment. If «the law punishes for an encroachment on the norm, made due to negligence responsibility can exist and when negligence was showed in neoznakomlenii with right and law requirements» [97 [98] [99].

As a result of reasonings the author defines following conditions of conscientiousness of the reference to the ignorance of law as the circumstance excluding responsibility: 1) acts at which the deliberate encroachment on pravoohranjaemyj interest is punished only are made; 2) convicted not only did not know about zapreshchennosti act, but also could not learn about interdiction existence (for example, it can be the person who has grown out of social conditions; the foreigner who has admitted infringement of local character (that is forbidden in the given country, but not being a crime in its state - A.P.), made at once after the arrival in the country) 3) a cash of ignorance from -


nositelno zapreshchennosti acts it is precisely proved.

Doubtless justice sees in N.S.Tagantseva's following statement: «... Representations that theft, murder, rape are forbidden, are absorbed by us since youthful years, in a family, at school; we get acquainted with many rules of law at first our vital collisions so the ignorance of these radical conditions of a public life is possible only under special conditions; but whether all area of criminal offences and infringements is settled by these heavy criminal actions?» 1. However words of the classic in modern conditions of a permanent correcting of the criminal law and presence in it of weight of norms with blanketnymi dispositions actually sound at so or even even more dynamical change of positions of other branches of the Russian legislation. And as precisely there corresponds to realities of the today's legal validity a conclusion that «any, even the skilled lawyer not in a condition to boast of full knowledge of commands and law interdictions» [100 [101] [102] [103].

On a presumption of knowledge of the law as on the assumption almost nevozmozh -


nogo German professor Eberlin specified also. It is caused by that «complexity of a modern state life, formidability of spaces, national distinctions, large number and a variety of social relations, on the one hand, and huge, escalating weight of laws, on the other hand, do absolutely inconceivable full knowledge by all all


Criminal laws ».

H.p. Belogrits-Kotljarevsky discriminated ignorance and an error. The first was understood by it as ignorance of conditions and circumstances of action. The error (error) was treated as incorrect representation about them. Noticing, that all these concepts are inherently qualitatively identical, the author spoke about their quantitative distinction - the ignorance is full ignorance, and an error (error) - absence of awareness on particulars or fact details. Noticing, that the established old doctrine the rule which has passed in new legislations, that the ignorance of law anybody cannot plead, as the impossibility of some crimes «is included into consciousness» everyone from the early childhood «as an inevitable product of education and relations between people» (the knowledge of them has absolute character); and others - as the general rule (the knowledge of them takes root with finding of life experience and preda - ny, having preemstvo in national consciousness), cannot be accepted in an unconditional kind. Its arguments demand certain specification. The last, according to the author, consists in the following: the ignorance of law harms, if the guilty understood, at least, protivoobshchestvennost the offence. Therefore act of the subject can be criminally even if he and did not know, «in what it the relation costs to the criminal law. He can even assume, that its action is not so forbidden by the law; but the criminality of its act is not excluded by it, so far as he understands, that its act goes to a cut with hostel conditions, that it protivoobshchestvenno» 1. The act criminality cannot be denied, if the subject knows about existence of the corresponding criminal law, but wrongly believes, that to sodejannomu it it is not applicable, or when it has own sight at act, including its not criminal (for example, a sight of some at murder from fanaticism). neizvinitelnost such acts the author gives reason the Supreme authority of the law which citizens should subordinate the behaviour, not running in an arbitrariness [104 [105].

In a situation when the convicted will prove, that he not only did not know, but on circumstances and could not know zapreshchennosti the act made by it, the last admits casual, responsibility does not come.

Thus, for criminality "destruction" sodejannogo the legal error, according to h.p. Belogrits-Kotljarevsky, it is necessary, that the person did not realise illegality or, at least, protivoobshchestvennosti the offence.

F.List also believed, that for an intention cash comprehension uchinitelem the named circumstance (that is protivoobshchestvennosti acts) is necessary. He wrote, that the intention is present at comprehension «protivoobshchestvennogo values of act, i.e. consciousness uchinitelja, that its act subjects to harm or danger interests protected by the right», and such comprehension does not coincide with comprehension forbidden ™ содеянного1. We will notice, that the given approach is conformable to modern representation about the maintenance of the intellectual moment of the intention assuming comprehension of the social danger of made act.

With S.V.poznyshevym it was allocated three versions of the legal error: 1) the person does not know, that act made by it is forbidden by the law, and is assured that have the right so to arrive; 2) the person knows, that its act is illegal, but is not informed that it penal, criminally, believing, that it is forbidden not criminal, but other law; 3) the person knows about criminality of act made by it, but is mistaken concerning character and the sizes of punishability [106 [107]. The named versions of errors, according to the author, have the unequal jural significance.

Doubtless the conclusion was represented, that the error of last kind does not eliminate intention. The subject in a similar case realises, that such behaviour is forbidden by the criminal law, the given act is followed by punishment, accordingly, he meaningly neglects criminal law requirements.

In two other situations all is more difficult. S.V.poznyshev names three approaches, developed concerning them in the Russian and foreign doctrine. Representatives of the first believe, that the intention does not demand comprehension zapreshchennosti act by the law; the second consider, that he assumes comprehension of illegality of act; the third include comprehension of punishability, criminality in number of its elements.

Continuation of the analysis demands some explanatories concerning comprehension of illegality of act as this property of behaviour of the person was treated by scientists of the corresponding period a little differently, than now. The modern criminal law identifies concepts «zapreshchennost acts by the law» and "illegality", "illegality". The Russian doctrine dosovetskogo the period discriminated them. When it was a question of comprehension by the person of illegality, illegality of act, it was understood according to the modern theory as social danger comprehension совершаемого1.

Proceeding from this parcel, also it is necessary to estimate three named above a position. Thus, according to the first, not demanding comprehension it is forbidden - nosti acts by the law, the principle «ignorantia juris semper nocet» should operate bar none.

The second approach was under construction on position that the intention demands comprehension of the social danger, injuriousness sodejannogo. Hence, from the point of view of guilty responsibility, for punishment of the person who have committed a crime, presence of the legal error of value had no at comprehension of the specified circumstance by it. In this case the named principle too is applicable, and about exceptions of it to speak difficult.

Inclusion in number of elements of intention of comprehension of criminality and punishability of act predetermines possibility of restriction of action of a principle of a presumption of knowledge of the law and, accordingly, causes the ambiguous approach to the decision of a question on punishability sodejannogo at the legal error.

According to S.V.poznysheva, for responsibility for a deliberate crime comprehension zapreshchennosti acts by the criminal law is required. He writes, that in cases when the person realises illegality of act, but does not realise its punishability, there is no conscious neglect criminal law threat, «which obektivirovalo necessity to inflict upon this person to punishment, as for deliberate act». The author does the interesting remark: «Perhaps, after its error was explained, it and without that will be kept from repeated fulfilment of a similar act, not risking to undergo to the criminal court». As a result of reasonings the conclusion follows, that at the ignorance of law punishability for umysh - [108 [109] [110] lennoe a crime should disappear, but the subject can be subjected responsibility for fulfilment of the given crime on imprudence.

At the same time the attention to creation is paid at such approach of the serious danger connected by that any criminal can plead the ignorance of law. But such excuse is inconceivable for the majority of crimes, rather zapreshchennosti and which punishability the person is informed since the childhood (it, in particular, murders, wounding, thefts, etc.). As to other acts here the person should confirm the statements about the ignorance of law with the concrete facts, «which would raise at the judge the thorough doubts» in, whether it knew a corresponding establishment and which would do in the opinion of justice the ignorance of law «more or less probable» 1. Thus, according to S.V.poznysheva, responsibility for imprudence is not excluded.

Ignorance of character of punishability and its concrete limits, ignoring of the law as which the person considers to irrational, not meeting public requirements, does not influence responsibility.

At the same time other scientists defended full inadmissibility of an excuse ignorance zapreshchennosti acts. I.Neumann's corresponding opinion is above already resulted.

The similar position was occupied with P.P.Pustoroslev. It specified, that «being supervised by the interests of all-round, probably big people's well-being demanding exact domination of the right in a national life in struggle against criminal offences, we should recognise, in the form of the general rule, that the error of the person concerning law in force decisions about act criminality cannot eliminate imputation of this act in fault uchinitelju. Otherwise legal order domination will be undermined in


Advantage of crimes, in a people's well-being damage ». [111 [112]

N.D.Sergeevskij1 adhered to similar opinion also.

The original position was occupied with I.Z.Geller who has devoted to an error in criminal law serious scientific work. It specified, that the question on value of the legal error «is one of the complicated questions of the general part», received at scientists the various decision. According to the author, to mess in sights promoted the misunderstood postulate of the ancient Roman Law «Error facti non nocet, error juris nocet» [113 [114] [115]. As marked E.Kohl - raush, the legal error has been carried by Romans to number inexcusable (behind very rare exception concerning, for example, of women and the soldiers) and, accordingly, not rendering influence on imputation in fault. But about exceptions subsequently it has been forgotten, and the named rule became bezus -


lovnym to what really testify resulted above position of some the European legislations.

At the same time I.Z.Geller believed, that, first, the intention cash cannot be put in dependence from izvinitelnosti or neizvinitelnosti errors; secondly, the general presumption of a recognition of the error in law guilty hardly is quite scientifically proved.

Defining an essence of deliberate guilt, the author noticed, that it consists that, «despite firm and distinct consciousness of reprehensibility of an act, the person, owing to weakness of ethical feelings or owing to force of bad bents, submits to improper motives and commits a crime... Degree of guilt (deliberate) depends on intensity of consciousness of reprehensibility and from weakness of ethical feelings (or from force of bad feelings), caused by this consciousness at uchinitelja» [116]. Reprehensibility thus was understood as wider concept, rather than illegality. If last consists in discrepancy to the right, in the contradiction to the rule of law reprehensibility assumes discrepancy to a debt in general, the contradiction to a rule of the due. Under a rule due association of concept of the right and morals saw.

Thus, at comprehension of reprehensibility of an act the person should be made accountable irrespective of, whether it knew about zapreshchennosti such act by the criminal law. If the person «makes a crime only owing to absence at it knowledge (about presence of a corresponding criminally-legal interdiction - A.P.) Which cash would keep it from committing a crime; that such person cannot be considered as the is social-dangerous person. It is enough to inform it this knowledge, and probability of fulfilment to them of the given crime in the future will disappear »1. If the person commits a crime, not understanding its reprehensibility, sodejannoe it cannot serve as an indicator to" intense degree of a personal condition of criminality »as there are no proofs, that« the consciousness of reprehensibility of the made would not keep it from act fulfilment. And in that case we cannot consider still uchinitelja as the criminal, the socially dangerous person »[117 [118] [119].

Apparently from reasonings of the author, it was the adherent of the theory of a dangerous condition of the person that should affect and the decision of the questions connected with definition of value of the legal error.

Thus, from I.Z.Gellera's reasonings the error in law (legal error) follows, that, basically, as the independent category of value practically has no. The person is informed on presence of this or that law, or not, it is not important, for the main role is played by comprehension of reprehensibility of act, and also a condition of the person, its making. At the same time, agreeing in this part from R.Gippelem, the author notices, that on occasion if «that is pressed by interests national blagosostoja -


nija and safety (for example, offences of technical character - A.P.), the legislator can meaningly suppose, by way of exception, imputation of deliberate act in fault and at ignorance about reprehensibility made with the party uchinitelja »1.

Last statement, in our opinion, is dangerous enough, as means an assumption of objective imputation.

Thus, having analysed theoretical approaches to definition of value of the legal error in criminal law of the countries representing the romano-German legal system, it is necessary to allocate three basic positions. The first: the legal error according to a principle «ignorantia legis (juris) neminem excusat» does not render any influence on the decision of a question on the criminal liability of the person who have committed a crime. The second - it is impossible to recognise the specified principle unconditional, from it exceptions are possible: under certain circumstances the person does not bear the criminal liability or sodejannoe to them admits not deliberate, but a careless crime. The third - the error in law (legal error), basically, as an independent category of value practically has no. The person is informed on presence of this or that law, or not, it is not important, for the main role is played by comprehension of reprehensibility of act, and also a condition of the person, its making; However the legislator can meaningly suppose, by way of exception, imputation of deliberate act in fault and at ignorance about reprehensibility made with the party uchinitelja.

At the same time the opinion that for intention presence is not required comprehension of punishability of act, consciousnesses of character and degree of punishability and consciousness of legal consequences of act in general was practically conventional. As marked E.Kolraush, guilt concerns «only those properties of act which were essential to punishability. The criminal intention can concern only a crime, but not to posledst -

vijam crimes (the legal consequences connected with punishment - A.P mean.) »1.

Concerning the factual error position that the factual error in criminal law can concern only objective signs of a committed crime was conventional. I.Z.Geller noticed, that we have before ourselves an error uchinitelja at discrepancy between its representation and an outer side of act [120 [121] [122].

Problems of the general doctrine about the factual error representatives of a science saw, first, in delimitation of necessary coincidence between the maintenance of intention and an act outer side; secondly, in question finding-out, in what cases the error uchinitelja is essential, and in what - is not present; in - the third, in an establishment of value of various sorts of an error at imputation


Acts in fault.

A.Fejerbah considered the factual error (in particular, an error in a subject (object) and in means of fulfilment of act), as the circumstance excluding a cash of the criminal trespass in general. In particular, he wrote: «Wrongful intention does not inform one to any act of a sign on illegality. Who speaks about a crime of the message of imaginary poison, about attempt on ubienie a dead body and to that similar, that mixes moral with lawful, the bases of safety police with the right to punishment, and should esteem guilty of attempt at murder worthy punishments even that Bavarian who on worship went to a distant monastery, what there the neighbour to pray for forgiveness to death» [123].

To the ordinary thinker to state a critical estimation to the great philosopher and the jurist hardly «on a rank». However to make some observations I consider all the same possible. It is represented, that attempt with "imaginary" poison or on a dead body and «worship in a monastery on purpose to pray for forgiveness with

seda to death »- different situations. Estimating last, really it is necessary to speak about moral law infringement. Wishing death near, the person does not make any concrete actions directed on achievement of such result and capable actually it to cause. In the first case corresponding steps are undertaken, and not be unusable object or means, the result would come. Therefore to talk only about one criminal intent (that is intention detection,« naked intention ») here it is hardly fair. The modern criminally-legal doctrine adheres to such approach.

A.F.Berner allocated "imaginary" crimes, understanding under them encroachments for unusable object. He wrote: «Umyshljaemoe the crime cannot be made, if its object at all goden. If who, on ignorance about perfect worthlessness of object, takes in head to carry out on it the criminal intent, e.g. to make murder over kukloju or over a shade, it will be a crime imaginary (Wahnverbrechen, Delictum putativum)» 1. Thus the author referred to the Prussian and Austrian criminal legislation, an encroachment on unusable object a crime not recognising.

At the same time A.F.Berner considered expedient application of police measures for the danger prevention, «represented toju voleju which is shown in imaginary crimes». The legislator can define and criminal punishability when the imaginary crime comprises at the same time other valid crime [124 [125] [126].

Discriminating suitable and unusable means, the researcher specified, that the last break up on perfect and rather (in concreto) the unusable. Application of the first excludes a crime. Corresponding positions as it was already marked, contained Hanover UK (§ 40), Giessen UK (§ 67) and Braunshvejgsky UK (§ 30).

Agreeing with a position rather absolutely (or on Berneru - it is perfect) unusable means, it is necessary to pay attention to the disputable approach to an encroachment estimation on unusable object.

S.M.Budzinsky, considering the factual error, allocated actual error concerning means and actual error concerning a subject. He noticed, that means represents itself as a link connecting will of the person with the sensual world. From the subjects which are out of it, the person does tools of the will and sets them in motion in the course of committing a crime. However means or tools can mismatch the purpose owing to error of the person, their concerning identity or качества1.

Thus, the author allocated two versions of an error in means - the error, concerning identities of means, and error concerning its quality. Within the limits of the first following situations have been defined: 1) the person who has counted sulfuric acid vodoju and given it to drink to another, cannot be recognised by the murderer, but it can make rashness in process of circumstances; 2) the person, with intention to poison another given to it by mistake water instead of sulfuric acid or sugar instead of arsenic, does not commit a crime as in this case there is on worthlessness of means a so-called imaginary crime (delictum putativus, Wahnverbrechen) or an impossible crime (delit impossilble, unmogliches Verbrechen); 3) the person who by mistake has given means deadly instead of another to whom wished to be injurious only to health, comes under to punishment not for murder, a for the deliberate damage of health interfaced to the inadvertent deprivation of life; 4) the person, wishing to make the murder which by mistake has given means which can be injurious only to health, should be punished only for deliberate damage of health.

At the analysis of the presented approaches attract attention following circumstances. First, the parity of two first of a situation looks a little absurd: the person who did not have intentions to harm, but by mistake of its caused, bears responsibility for rashness (i.e. Careless causing), and the person who had intention on murder, but the admitted error concerning the applied means, does not answer at all. Secondly, the decision of questions on responsibility in the presence of an error in means "comes off" an intention orientation to what conclusions from the second and fourth situation most brightly testify.

Approaches and to situations of error as means are similar. In a position of the author the relation to error in a case when someone with intention to poison a victim will give it instead of one mortally operating poison the same another is indisputable only. Absolutely fairly the author concludes, that such error has no influence on наказание1.

With reference to an error in identity or quality of object (subject) of a crime of S.M.Budzinsky five situations are allocated. The analysis of exits offered by the author from them besides testifies to inconsistent application of a principle of responsibility depending on an intention orientation. So, from the specified point of view, rather sporny following statements: 1) B. Shoots in A, believing, that is his father; in this case at the deprivation of life the guilty should be punished for second-degree murder because it could not make concerning A. Patricides; 2) if the person will pierce with a dagger a corpse, including its live, that cannot come under to punishment for it commits only an imaginary crime.

Proving impunity of an imaginary crime (which examples are resulted above), the author notices, that it is predetermined mainly by that only intention here is malicious and illegal. Act does not comprise anything illegal. Thus, under S.Budzinskogo's statement, punishment application in this case means punishment for thoughts as the act made by the subject, cannot at - [127 [128]

znano the valid detection criminal умысла1. Such approach is hardly fair, as actually the acts directed on realisation of criminal intent, by the person are made quite really. The another matter, because of corresponding error intention cannot be embodied in full volume.

In reasonings concerning the so-called "imaginary" crime which cash communicated the named authors with absolute worthlessness of object or means, some discrepancy sees. Absolute worthlessness has the shades. One business when the person, wishing to someone death, believing, that uses poison, on error applies powdered sugar, an another matter when uplifts a pray with wishes to the foe of  destruction. Yes, objectively both that and other means it is possible to recognise absolutely unusable as their application is not capable to cause approach of corresponding result. But consideration of these situations from the point of view «intention movements» allows to spend their differentiation: in the first the person makes the concrete actions directed on committing a crime, but owing to defect of used means does not lead up conceived up to the end; in the second only corresponding will is really expressed. Besides, when the person uses means similar to a pray, it is mistaken in its most essence: it under no circumstances is never capable to cause death. And from scientific positions the objective impossibility similar means to achieve desirable result is obvious.

If the person applies powdered sugar instead of poison, in original properties of the first it is not mistaken (introduction in an organism of the sustained corresponding preparation is really capable to lead to its  destruction), there is an error not in an essence, and in perception: one subject is perceived as another. Under N.S.Tagantseva's fair statement, such activity «comprises all elements of punishable act: from objective, this action represents the beginning of reproduction the law -

nogo structure, and from subjective - in it the real malicious will »1 is found out.

The same and with worthlessness of object (subject). If the person breaks non-recoverable splinters of an expensive vase into smaller slices, hardly it is possible to talk about the criminal trespass. But when it strikes blow by a knife to a corpse, believing, that before it the sleeping person to speak about "imaginary" and, hence, nonpunishable act it is hardly fair.

Defining all situations of encroachments with absolutely unusable means and for absolutely unusable object (subject) as imaginary crimes, authors consider only external signs sodejannogo, unreasonably abstracting from a subjective component of human behaviour. In other words, do not consider an orientation of intention of the figure and degree of its realisation.

Defining the nature of the factual error, N.S.Tagantsev specified, that it represents discrepancy of the assumption and the validity and can result, first, from ignorance by the given person of actual conditions of activity, from a lack of the representations corresponding to the validity (ignorance in close sense of a word), or from wrong representation of this conditions (error). Thus he believed, that the ignorance and error in aggregate and form concept of the factual error which as a whole the author understood as an error concerning a cash uslo -


vy criminal action. In any case the error assumes absence of true consciousness of reality.

In system of factual errors of N.S.Tagantsev included an error concerning object of an encroachment; concerning criminal action conditions (a place, time, means and ways); concerning a causal relationship of the phenomena. [129 [130]

Defining value of any of the meant errors, the author specified in their triple role at the decision of a question on imputation in fault of the act made by the person. First, they can concern the circumstances causing criminality of act and entering into number of its lawful signs. Such errors should exclude imputation of a deliberate encroachment as testify to absence of comprehension of those circumstances which, actually, and transform act into a corresponding crime (for example, the person takes a thing, believing, that it constitutes its property while it belonged to other person). At the same time, according to the author, such errors in certain situations do not exclude responsibility for careless causing provided that for that with reference to corresponding act the criminal liability in general is provided.

The second aspect of value of factual errors consists that they can concern circumstances, by means of which of patrimonial concept of any crime (for example, murders) its special kind attracting more or less a strict liability is allocated. Analyzing N.S.Tagantseva's position, we will conditionally divide them on positive (the assumption of that presence, that is not present) and negative (lack of information that is) an error. Presence of a negative error (the person believes, that the corresponding circumstance is absent: killing the father, it believes, that kills the extraneous person) excludes imputation of the crime aggravated by a certain sign. Such error, not excluding intention, nevertheless, acts as an obstacle for imputation more grave crime.

Positive error (the person believes, that the corresponding circumstance is present: for example, killing another's person, it considers, that it is his father), according to the author, should exclude imputation in fault of the crime aggravated by that or other sign (in the presented situation the person is responsible for second-degree murder) 1.

At the same time in the doctrine other sights at an estimation of the specified situation have been presented also. The first of them was reduced to the offer to qualify sodejannoe as murder of that person, which wished to take life guilty (that is in a situation of a positive error - as murder of the father) [131 [132] [133].

Supporters of the second saw here ideal set of two encroachments - attempts at that person which intended to kill, and the careless deprivation of life of other person. And such decision seemed to them proved in any situation of an error in object (not only in case of possession it any special signs as, for example, at us - to be the father of the figure).

P.P.Pustoroslev, proving this position, noticed, that «any of error cases in object does not keep within frameworks of one ended deliberate crime... Though external action posjagatelja, owing to an error, has really been directed to time of the realisation for that object which here was; but for that the will has been directed on other object. At discrepancy of the come consequence with will of the figure this last logically cannot be deliberate» [134].

Criticising the first position, its opponents noticed, that the qualifying circumstance «only then can increase responsibility if it was carried out actually» 1.

Objecting the second, recognised as its artificial and noticed what to talk about imprudence while the intention hardly obosnovanno [135 [136] took place. Really, division of a direction of action and a will direction in such situation is represented decided. They are subjectively uniform. The another matter, that objectively owing to error occurs substitution of object (subject), but it does not create two independent crimes.

It is necessary to notice, that discussion concerning presented above a situation proceeds and now. In particular, concerning qualification of murder of the woman assumed guilty pregnant woman whereas it that was not. Polyphony of positions and now characterises the criminally-legal theory in this part.

However we will return to N.S.Tagantseva's position concerning the third aspect of a role of the factual error in imputation. It can not have any value if concerns circumstances, indifferent for structure or qualification sodejannogo. So, an error concerning the true proprietor of an abducted thing, the name of poison by whom murder is made, or the specificity of its action which have was a cause of death (the guilty believed, that preparation introduction will lead to a heart paralysis, and actually it had been caused asphyxia), et cetera.

Represents doubtless theoretical and practical interest allocation of the so-called mixed error possessing lines both legal, and actual error. About such combination talked, particulars, S.M.Budzinsky and N.S.Tagantsev.

S.M.Budzinsky understood as the named error the mixed error constituting something an average between legal and actual error in close sense, following of ignorance of the rules which are not entering into a circle criminal законов1.

N.S.Tagantsev in this connection marked, «that the structure of many criminal actions is arranged still with known juridical facts, the assumptions following from positions of the right civil, state, financial etc.; therefore we can present to ourselves and such cases when the ignorance and error about a cash of conditions of criminal action will concern these its legal conditions» [137 [138] [139].

As examples authors result, in particular, such situations: convicted of bigamy pleads ignorance that the decision of the spiritual court which has terminated the previous marriage, has appeared void; the person, considering valid the will doing with its successor though it is deprived essential formalities, spends the inheritance (i.e. it is actually in actual error in relation to the quality (including itself wrongly successor) because does not know civil law rules about wills). Here it is possible to draw a parallel with the crimes provided by norms with blanketnymi by dispositions which it is a lot of in operating UK the Russian Federation. It is necessary to notice, that the question on responsibility for the crimes named such norms, and represents now, in our opinion, uneasy enough problem.

N.S.Tagantsev specified, as errors of a similar sort have «three shades» about which it is told above in the course of imputation. Hence, and


Value of an error corresponds to an accessory to this or that of them.

The most difficult in theoretical and practical sense is the error in a causal relationship. A.Fejerbah named its omission of the use of force of the knowledge, consisting «in reflexion omission about possible communication of the reason of external act with an event from that breach of law - fault on nerazsuditelnosti» 1.

Despite an abundance of positions concerning the causal relationship maintenance in the criminally-legal doctrine of the considered period [140 [141], some positions, its concerning, admitted the majority of researchers. One of the cores is reduced to that the intention maintenance at the committing a crime, attracting the harmful consequences wished uchinitelem, demands a prediction of a cash causal relationship, process of its development at least in the most general lines [142].

As marked P.P.Pustoroslev, «for designedness of a consequence, under ordinary conditions of a life, it is necessary, that the person expected, that its act will enter into a combination to other ordinary conditions of a life and will find in them to itself probable, though and in accuracy of unknown allies in business of furtherance of this consequence» [143].

In the criminally-legal theory the error in a causal relationship was defined as an error concerning conditionality of criminal result by an act учинителя1.

P.P.Pustoroslevym was resulted such example: the farmer has carried the newborn child in winter in a garden, thinking, that he will die of a cold, and actually the child has been torn to pieces by the tiger who has escaped from a menagerie passing not far about whom the figure knew nothing [144 [145] [146]. The question arising in such situation, is reduced to the following: whether it is possible to make to the farmer the ended murder, after all result, to it wished, has come?

The analysis of corresponding sources allows to allocate two approaches to the permission of the given situation (and to it similar), developed in a science. The first was based on the theories limiting concept of a causal relationship (in sense of conditionality) objective properties of act. Their essence: time all conditions are equally necessary for consequence approach all of them should have and identical value. In this sense and action of the farmer (if it has not carried the child in a garden, would not happen further), and behaviour of an animal have led to approach of death of the baby. Accordingly, the ended premeditated murder is available. The theory according to which danger of action quite displaces value of action as conditions of approach of criminal result adjoins to named. According to it in the specified situation completed crime comes under to imputation.

The second approach was under construction on restriction of concept of a causal relationship on the basis of properties subjective, that is on «the basis of the known relation of consciousness to a causal relationship» [147]. The error in a causal relationship represents discrepancy between consciousness uchinitelja and a causal relationship. The general rule of the permission of such situations was offered to N.D.Sergievsky: «If the consequence, at least and conceived, is made by such combination which the subject did not provide and could not provide, this consequence out of imputation limits» 1.

I.Z.Geller also representing the specified approach, marked: «... Action in itself dangerous, but not caused, however, approach of criminal result, is not charged as completed crime. At approach of criminal result by not expected image the result should be considered as though not come that is why also act cannot be charged in the form of completed crime, at least action uchinitelja and in itself was dangerous» [148 [149] [150] [151].

As a whole such approach corresponds to our representation concerning an estimation of such error. Proceeding from it, the farmer cannot be responsible for the ended murder of the baby who has been torn to pieces by a tiger, attempt is available.

As one more version of an error in a causal relationship it was allocated dolus generalis. The situation essence consists that the criminal result is sometimes caused not by that act of the person which has been directed on its achievement, and another, undertaken later, in the presence of the erroneous


Assumptions, that the consequence has already come.

N.S.Tagantsev results the following example of a similar error: the murderer hiding traces sodejannogo, believing, that the victim is dead, though it not


So, pushes together it in water, that sinks, therefore there comes death.

It was offered two variants of the permission of the specified situation: 1) sodejannoe it was considered as one deliberate act; 2) it is made two acts: attempt plus a careless encroachment or casual causing.

The first point of view (that is represented to us fair) was prevailing. As «at the heart of the second action lays. The initial intention or desire to provide success of the first action, - wrote N.D.Sergeevsky, - that it is necessary to consider both actions as one deja -

nie »1. About objective communication of both actions with the come result, and also about communication of the second intention with the first (that is about subjective communication -

A. P) as about the circumstances causing presence of one act in the considered situation, spoke also I.Z.Geller [152 [153] [154].

It is impossible to ignore the relation of founders of the West European and Russian criminally-legal doctrine to a situation of a deviation of action (aberratio ictus, aberratio delicti) and to its parity with an error. Practically all researchers the conclusion about basic distinction of these situations became. At a deviation in operation there is no error as the person directs the will to the necessary channel, obektiviruja it in the act directed in the relation of that object at which the guilty is aimed. As marked S.M.Budzinsky, in a situation when A wished to kill

B., has made a shot, but has got in B because that has suddenly got on line of a shot, «the external causal relationship between will, action and a consequence exists... Continuously, but their internal communication is barred a minute of evasion. The consequences made since that instant, do not consist any more in connection with will, already cease to be for it means to purpose achievement, links connecting will and act. Consequences here are casual».

S.V.poznyshev also specified that situations of the factual error and an action deviation though and «close stand», but seriously differ. In case of a deviation there is no error. Besides, if at an error we face one external event, at an action deviation - with two (an action direction on one object and its real realisation concerning another) [155]. This position was dominating. The majority of authors marked radical distinction between error in objecto and abberatio ictus. They saw a uniform deliberate crime In the first situation [156]. I.Z.Geller

Formulated a corresponding substantiation so: «In spite of the fact that other object, than object of action meant, at the moment of the action the will has been directed on a subject being before the subject or the person» 1. Presence of a dual offence admitted the second (deliberate and careless), sometimes - a deliberate encroachment and casus ^.

F.List "equalised" factual error consequences in object and action deviations. It saw one ended deliberate act in both situations. A.Vereschagin adhered to similar opinion.

Absolutely fairly disagreeing with such decision, S.V.on znyshev wrote: «Here (at abberatio ictus - A.P.) criminal actions two: the first is directed, intentionally on murder, an encroachment on one... There is an attempt at A.Vtoroe's murder act - deprivation of life B which also should come under to a criminally-legal estimation. This act should be considered casual and nonpunishable if the given result could not be expected, and it should be considered careless if prediction possibility existed. Thus, at abberatio ictus we have: attempt + casus or culpa» [157 [158] [159] [160]. N.S.Tagantsev carried this situation to the mixed guilt [161]. The resulted position completely corresponds to modern representations concerning a legal estimation of a deviation of action.

Development of the theory of an error in the Russian criminal law proceeded and further - during the Soviet and Post-Soviet period. P.S.Dagel, L.D.Gauhman, F.G.Giljazev, V.F.Kirichenko, A.A.Piontkovsky, A.I.Rarog, V.A.Yakushin and a number of other authors have at various times brought in it [162] the contribution.

The named problem and the foreign doctrine about what it will be told further more in detail was not ignored.

Thus, carried out in the given section of work the analysis testifies, that formation and active development of the theory of an error in the criminally-legal doctrine of the countries representing the romano-German legal system as integral set of scientific views occurred in second half XVIII - nach. XX centuries It was carried out against scale updating in XVIII century of the criminal legislation of the states of the Western Europe and Russia, which in many countries began to include (in Criminal codes and codes) the positions, concerning errors.

As a whole, the understanding of an error as criminally-legal category was characterised by uniformity. It contacted the majority of authors fault institute that was brightly showed in the Russian criminally-legal doctrine. At the same time a number of researchers carried an error to number of the circumstances excluding criminality and (or) punishability of acts.

As a rule, authors allocated two versions of errors - legal and actual. Concerning the first the basic discussions were led concerning influence of a presumption of knowledge of the law on the decision of a question of responsibility of the persons committed a crime and justifying by ignorance of legal establishments. In this part it was generated three positions: 1) "radical", assuming rigid following to a principle «ignorantia legis (juris) neminem excusat», not supposing exceptions any of it and, hence, denying any value of the legal error at the decision of a question on responsibility of the person who have committed a crime; 2) "liberal" which representatives refused to recognise the specified principle unconditional, supposing exceptions of it (under certain circumstances the person should not bear the criminal liability or sodejannoe to them should admit not deliberate, but a careless crime); 3) adjoining to "radical" in the sense that its apologists denied value of the error in law (legal error) as independent category, but on a little bit other bases (whether the person is informed on presence of this or that law, it is not important for the main role is played by comprehension of reprehensibility of act, and also a condition of the person, its making; however the legislator can is conscious suppose by way of exception imputation of deliberate act in fault and at neoconsciousness uchinitelem reprehensibility made).

As to the factual error here again on variety of aspects there was a polyphony of opinions. First, of kinds that. Some researchers were limited to error allocation in object (subject) and in committing a crime means (thus last connected with crime "movement" - with attempt at it). Secondly, concerning the factual error jural significance (from a full exception of the criminal liability at its presence to a crime recognition neoterminated or made on imprudence, or ascertaining of set of encroachments - deliberate and careless). In - the third, about a parity of the factual error and abberatio ictus, and also about qualification sodejannogo in a situation of a deviation of action (a uniform deliberate crime or attempt + casus or culpa).

It is necessary to underline, that the criminally-legal doctrine of the named period had been put in pawn fundamental theoretical bases of research of an error in criminal law. Its further studying occurred and occurs to a support on these workings out. However we will notice, that a number of aspects of a problem, nevertheless, till now remains debatable and representing considerable complexities at practical realisation. As to the criminal legislation it, since the Soviet period and on present time, does not contain complete system of the norms regulating questions of responsibility in the presence of an error that testifies, in our opinion, about a considerable step back in right development (in its corresponding part) in comparison with Ulozhenijami 1845 and 1903

<< | >>
A source: Prokhorov Alexander Jurevich. ERROR INSTITUTE In ROMANO-GERMAN CRIMINAL LAW: KOMPARATIVISTSKY And TEORETIKO-APPLIED ASPECTS. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Krasnodar, 2014. 2014

More on topic formation and development of institute of an error and its theoretical substantiation in the romano-German criminal law:

  1. Legislative approaches to a regulation of institute of an error in the romano-German criminal law
  2. Prokhorov Alexander Jurevich. ERROR INSTITUTE In ROMANO-GERMAN CRIMINAL LAW: KOMPARATIVISTSKY And TEORETIKO-APPLIED ASPECTS. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Krasnodar,,
  4. treatment of institute of an error in the criminally-legal doctrine of the states of the romano-German legal family
  5. § 3. A theoretical substantiation of model of criminally-legal institute of plurality of crimes in the criminal legislation of Russia
  6. § 1. Development and error reflexion available the circumstances excluding criminality of act,in criminal law of Byelorussia and the Russian Federation
  7. the criminal legislation of the countries of the romano-German legal system
  9. § 2. Formation and development of institute of responsibility in international law
  11. § 3. Formation and development of institute of gamblings and a bet in the domestic law and order.
  12. § 3. Custom in legal systems of the German subgroup of the romano-German legal family
  13. § 1.1. Formation and development of the contract of delivery as civil law institute
  14. § 1. The custom theory in the romano-German legal doctrine
  15. FILATOVA ULJANA BORISOVNA. INSTITUTE of the RIGHT of the JOINT PROPERTY In ROMANO-GERMAN COUNTRIES of the LEGAL FAMILY (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France And Russia: rather-LEGAL RESEARCH). The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the Doctor of juridical science. Moscow - 2015, 2015
  16. «the Teoretiko-methodological substantiation akmeologicheskoj concepts of formation and development of subjects polyethnic formation»