PARADOXES OF RUSSIAN CRIMINAL POLICY ON ENHANCING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSONS HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME HILE INTOXICATED

The subject of this study is the correlation between the declared targeting and the actual results of the Russian Criminal Policy 2009-2017 in part of strengthening of criminal responsibility and punishment of persons committing crimes while intoxicated. The author analyses and critically assesses the legislation novelties in this direction and the practice of their implementation. The overall conclusion of the author is disappointing: announced by our State criminal policy to strengthen criminal responsibility and punishment of persons who committed crimes while intoxicated is characterized by a number of systemic weaknesses that, in view of the "contribution" of all the forms of implementation of criminal policy - legislation, enforcement activities and the practice of the Constitutional and Supreme courts of the Russian Federation - leads to paradoxical results, the main ones are the following. 1. Criminalization in 2014 of such an act as the driving of a motor vehicle by a person in a state of intoxication, which is, in fact, a minor hazardous ofeence (Art. 2641), has been carried out against the backdrop of the 2003 decriminalization of more socially dangerous acts from the point of view of the values of objects of the criminal legal protection. It also gives a significant increment in the number of persons with convictions for minor offences that are not consistent with the trend of criminal policy in the part of its focus on reducing the number of persons having convictions for minor offences, and also more dangerous ones. 2. The policy of 'strengthening' is of fractionary nature, which is manifested in the establishment of the qualifying feature 'committing of a crime in a state of intoxication' (Article 264 of the Criminal Code) only in one offence; as a result equal and even more dangerous acts remain outside the concept. 3. Permissible by criminal law and implemented in practice possibility of exemption from criminal responsibility (on the grounds established by Art. 75 and 76 of the Criminal Code) for persons who have committed offences under Art. 264 and 2641 of the Criminal Code eliminates the objective of enhancing the criminal responsibility of individuals having committed the offences while intoxicated. 4. Introduction into Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of such circumstances aggravating punishment as 'an offence in a state of intoxication', does not give a real scale strengthening of punishment of persons who committed offences while intoxicated.

law, criminal law, criminal policy, legislation, law enforcement, law interpretation practice, criminal responsibility, punishment, intoxication, traffic safety and operation of transport

1. Арзамасцев М. Состояние опьянения как квалифицирующий признак дорожно-транспортного преступления // Уголовное право. - 2010. - № 1.

2. Грачева Ю.В., Коробеев А.И., Чучаев А.И. Новый вид транспортного преступления как модифицированный вариант хорошо забытого старого // Lex russica. - 2015. - № 4.

3. Иванцова Н.В., Сосновский А.Л. Уголовно-правовые меры охраны жизни в сфере безопасности дорожного движения // Транспортное право. - 2010. - № 2.

4. Исаев Н.И. Уголовная ответственность за нарушение Правил дорожного движения и эксплуатации транспортных средств / под ред. Н.Г. Кадникова. - М., 2011.

5. Комментарий к Уголовному кодексу Российской Федерации для работников прокуратуры (постатейный) / отв. ред. В.В. Малиновский; науч. ред. А.И. Чучаев. - М., 2011.

6. Кузнецова Н.Ф. Проблемы квалификации преступлений: Лекции по спецкурсу «Основы квалификации преступлений». - М., 2007.

7. Сердюк Л.В. Безопасность эксплуатации транспорта, охрана общественного порядка и защита личности // Lex russica. - 2016. - № 11 (120).

8. Спасенников Б.А., Спасенников С.Б. Невменяемость в уголовном праве. - М., 2013.