Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Conflict Studies / nota bene
Reference:

Interpersonal conflicts motivated by jealousy or revenge as a condition for committing violent crimes

Sergeeva Anzhelika Anatol'evna

PhD in Law

Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, St. Petersburg Institute (Branch) All-Russian State University of Justice

199178, Russia, Cankt-Peterburg, g. Saint Petersburg, ul. 10-Ya liniya v.o., 19

lokhi@yandex.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0617.2022.2.38228

Received:

08-06-2022


Published:

23-06-2022


Abstract: The subject of the study is violent interpersonal conflicts motivated by emotional states of jealousy and revenge or their combination. The research used a methodology based on the principles of dialectical cognition and including generally recognized scientific methods used in conflictology and jurisprudence. The author refers to moral norms in their relationship with the law, as well as in their perception by a person committing a violent crime motivated by jealousy or revenge. On this basis, recommendations have been developed that have scientific value for the further development of the theory of interpersonal conflicts and practical significance for use in the process of establishing the circumstances of the commission of violent crimes related to their subjective side. Author established the features of the intellectual element of the intent of a person committing a violent crime motivated by jealousy or revenge. Due to a distorted perception of moral norms, such a person has a tolerant attitude to violence, which in his mind is considered permissible out of jealousy, revenge or in the presence of a combination of these motives. The scope of application of the research results is practical conflictology and prevention of violent crimes. The scientific novelty of the study is due to the author's approach to establishing the peculiarities of the subject's perception of violent crime of moral norms, the distorted interpretation of which allows him to show aggression out of jealousy or revenge. It is substantiated that a subject who commits a crime out of jealousy or revenge violates generally recognized norms of morality, and his behavior in the event of an interpersonal conflict has an increased public danger equivalent to the public danger of hooligan motives. Taking into account these circumstances both in the development of methods for resolving interpersonal conflicts and in the prevention of violent crimes seems necessary.


Keywords:

interpersonal conflicts, violent crime, jealousy, revenge, base motives, motive of the crime, crime prevention, punishment, norms of morality, conditions for the commission of a crime

This article is automatically translated.

Conflict situations that arise between people for various reasons can become a condition for committing violent crimes, without being their cause, since the determination of criminal behavior is objective. According to expert criminological estimates, the share of such crimes in the structure of registered crime is about 11% and remains fairly stable [1, p. 14]. Acts that did not entail consequences in the form of death or serious harm to the victim's health have a high latency, since due to personal relationships (marriage, cohabitation, acquaintance), victims do not seek to convict the perpetrators [2, pp. 86-121]. At the same time, interpersonal conflict persists and may cause the commission of a more serious crime in the future. Experts in the field of conflictology rightly consider such situations counterproductive [3, pp. 201-203], which seems right and requires overcoming. Studies of the socio-psychological nature of interpersonal conflicts have been successfully implemented in the works of A. Y. Antsupov, N. V. Grishina, V. V. Druzhinin, M. P. Krapivin, and the definitions introduced by them into scientific circulation do not require corrections. In the legal doctrine and in criminological science, the study of the motivation of violent crimes and its connection with moral norms and emotional states based on feelings of jealousy and revenge, or a combination of them, is quite in demand [4, pp. 118-132; 5, pp. 71-76]. Such studies were carried out by many reputable scientists (Yu. M. Antonyan, V. N. Kudryavtsev, V. E. Eminov, etc.). Recognizing the value of the results obtained, it should be noted that there are some gaps in the research based on insufficiently clear formulation of moral norms and insufficiently attentive attitude to the unacceptability of these emotional states by these norms (in other words, - to the immoral nature of base motives). Therefore, the study of the correlation of moral norms and tolerance to feelings of jealousy and revenge has a potential scientific novelty, expanding doctrinal ideas about the unacceptability of violence motivated by these feelings. Taking into account the development of the concepts of conflict, jealousy, revenge and morality at the interdisciplinary scientific level, it is of interest to narrow the problem field of research to the measurement of such a ratio.

Within the framework of the proposed article, the correlation of the elements of jealousy and revenge in the motivation structure of violent crimes committed on the basis of interpersonal conflict is investigated. The methodology of the research is based on the criteria of dialectical cognition, as well as a set of generally recognized scientific methods, through which the ratio of criminal law and moral norms is set, based on the unacceptability of manifestations of criminal aggression motivated by jealousy or revenge. Among these methods, it is necessary to distinguish analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, abstraction and generalization, as well as formal-logical and axiomatic. To solve the main task of the study, analysis and synthesis were the most important, since with their help the establishment of the correlation of concepts of different social nature becomes optimal. To illustrate the author's reasoning, a selective generalization of judicial practice in criminal cases of murders as the most serious violent crimes, in which the subject acts under the influence of motivation related to jealousy, revenge or personal hostility, is made.  

It should also be noted that when committing a specific crime, the motivation of the subject is not obvious, and in this case it seems appropriate to raise the question of assessing his actions not only by criminal law norms, but also by moral norms.

In practice, there are cases when a particularly serious violent crime (for example, murder) is committed outwardly for no reason. This testifies to the special immorality and cynicism of the guilty, who feels an imaginary permissiveness and – often – realizes the desire for self-affirmation. For example, a citizen who killed two people under the following circumstances was found guilty by the Kaluga Regional Court of committing a crime under paragraphs "a" and paragraph "i" of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Having purchased a hunting crossbow, he went to a remote area of the Moscow region, where he shot a man he did not know who was fishing in the river with a shot from this crossbow. About a month later, on the territory of the Kaluga region, he committed a similar murder of a victim engaged in fishing. The intent to deprive strangers of their lives arose, as the court found, after the purchase of a crossbow, one of the premeditated parameters for the implementation of the intent was the sudden firing of a shot while being in conditions that preclude the detection of these actions by the victim or other persons. Refusing to change the sentence, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the presence of hooligan motives was imputed to the convicted person correctly (definition of 09/20/2011 No. 85-011-15SP). Although the murders were committed in conditions of non-obviousness, the very fact of the consecutive deprivation of the lives of two people without a pronounced motivation indicates an expression of obvious disrespect for society, denial of the value of human life and signs characterizing the motives specified in paragraph "i" of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. There is no doubt about the qualification of what the convict did as the murder of two persons under paragraph "a" of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As A. L. Ivanov rightly notes, this type of murder implies a subjective awareness of the successive deprivation of the lives of several people [6, pp. 46-50], so the time gap does not matter here.

Interestingly enough, the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR "On judicial practice on premeditated murders" dated 22.12.1992 No. 15, which has now become invalid, contained an explanation on the differentiation of murder committed from hooligan motives from murders with a different motivation. In paragraph 6 of this resolution, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR explicitly stated that a murder committed out of jealousy, revenge and other motives arising from personal relationships, under no circumstances should be qualified as committed out of hooligan motives. In other words, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR did not see in the structure of the motives of jealousy or revenge a sign of obvious disrespect for society or for generally accepted moral norms. In relation to hooligan motives, he singled out such, and also characterized the behavior of the guilty as an open challenge to public order and a desire to oppose himself to others, demonstrating a disdainful attitude towards them. Indeed, if there is a motive of jealousy or revenge, the culprit does not challenge public order, but in terms of the lack of disregard for generally accepted moral norms, an unambiguous statement is impossible. In fact, both with the motive of jealousy and with the motive of revenge, the subject realizes his imaginary exclusivity in a certain way, on the basis of which he has a tolerant attitude towards violence, lynching as a way of resolving personal conflict. Regarding the generally accepted norms of morality, the neglect of which in the modern legal positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is characterized by hooligan motives (paragraph 12 of the current resolution of 27.01.1999 "On judicial practice in cases of murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)"), we can conclude the following. There is no legal definition of this construction. The criminalizing feature of some crimes is actually immorality, in criminal law terminology - the presence of base motives (for example, in Articles 153, 155 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), – S. V. Anoshchenkova justifiably notes [7, pp. 33-47]. More radical judgments, which can be combined under the general heading "any crime is immoral", were expressed, although in different volumes, by many well-known scientists in classical works on criminal law: A. A. Herzenzon believed immorality to be one of the signs of a crime [8, p. 41]; A. A. Piontkovsky believed that to rank it in this quality should not be, because it is meaningfully absorbed by the sign of illegality [9, p. 29]; Yu. M. Antonyan, V. N. Kudryavtsev and V. E. Eminov, without affecting the concept of crime, endow the criminal's personality with antisocial views and a negative attitude to moral values [10, p. 34]. Respecting the positions and authority of these scientists, we note that the nature and degree of immorality may vary depending on the structure and types of criminal behavior. In addition, if we assume that each crime is immoral, then it should be assumed that the immoral behavior of the victim, which was the reason for the commission of the crime, is a circumstance excluding the criminality of the act, and in accordance with Part 1 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, this is one of the circumstances mitigating the punishment. Accordingly, the normative approach in this case is narrower than the doctrinal one. Criminal law illegality, in turn, acts as one of the normative signs of a crime and, as is known, is interpreted as a contradiction of criminal behavior to specific criminal law prohibitions. With regard to immorality, it can be noted that the authors mentioned above consider it as a clear contradiction of the subject's behavior to the moral norms existing in society, and this approach is implemented both in general theoretical and in industry studies.   

N. S. Tagantsev categorically opposed the identification of the criminal and immoral [11, p. 24]. The phenomenon of moral normativity is inherently characterized by plurality and contextuality, by virtue of which the absorption and assimilation of interactions allow integration into a common moral continuum [12, pp. 10-19]. Moral norms also have a sign of compatibility, which makes it possible to maintain a certain meaningful unity of morality in various social groups [13, p. 5-24], however, it overly complicates both the category of immorality and its application to the characterization of criminal behavior. The moral law, which formed one of the foundations of I. Kant's teaching, possessed the property of universality, universality, but until now the problem of discursive-normative communication, in which the subject acts by appealing to his understanding of the right and reasonable, has not been solved [14, pp. 79-88].

At the same time, both jealousy and revenge, although in different proportions, are endowed with inconsistency with generally accepted norms of morality. So, the latter undoubtedly include the concepts of honor, dignity, truthfulness, loyalty to justice, recognition of the value of human life, independence, personal space. The balance of these categories in a person's consciousness can be extremely fragile and – in connection with the sensory sphere that determines the development of motives of jealousy and revenge – subject to deformation. In turn, jealousy and revenge are special emotional states of a negative orientation that have arisen in the mind of the subject on the basis of personal relationships with the victim (victim) and form in him a desire to harm his (her) life or health. At the same time, jealousy is based on a demonstration of personal feelings and unwillingness to lose communicative interaction with the object of sympathy, whereas revenge, on the contrary, is a desire to "punish" the victim (victim) for a really or imaginary act of dishonest or immoral nature committed against the guilty.            

Jealousy as a way to preserve personal relationships can be directed both to the victim – the object of sympathy, and to the victim – the imaginary or real source of the destruction of this sympathy. At the same time, the culprit considers himself protecting both his own honor and personal well-being, personal relations with a particular victim. Under these circumstances, the victim and the perpetrator may be in a marital or partnership relationship, or a potential "destroyer" of a marriage or partnership becomes a victim of criminal actions, and the reason for their commission is real or imaginary treason.

Judicial practice proceeds from the same. For example, a court verdict under Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation convicted a defendant for the murder of a cohabitant, who put forward a version that the victim provoked him with her behavior, and he acted out of jealousy. In the cassation ruling of 18.01.2022 No. 77-91/2022, the Seventh Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction indicated that the arguments about the immoral behavior of the victim were not confirmed at the hearing, and the quarrel with the defendant took place on the basis of his unilateral claims regarding her infidelity. In the cassation ruling of 09.02.2022 in case No. 77-467/2022, the Sixth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction indicated that the feeling of jealousy itself, which caused the emergence of personal hostility, cannot indicate illegal or immoral behavior of the victim.

In the cassation ruling of 31.03.2022 in case No. 77-1380/2022, the Sixth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction indicated that the arguments about the existence of a state of necessary defense, during which the convicted person committed the murder of the victim, are groundless. Guided by the motive of jealousy, the convict, with a knife brought with him, inflicted a fatal wound on the victim, whom he accused of having an intimate relationship with a citizen with whom he cohabited and – presumably – convicted of treason.

Using the construction "revenge on the grounds of jealousy", V. N. Vinokurov, in turn, concludes that it reflects the direction of the actions of the perpetrator and allows us to determine those relations that are harmed in the first place, namely, relations in the sphere of inviolability of life [15, pp. 131-141]. Agreeing with the thesis formulated by V. K. Glistin in the late 70s of the last century [16, p. 83], the scientist emphasizes that the crime violates a wide range of public relations, both protected and not protected by criminal law. Within the framework of his proposed construction, of course, the motive of revenge gives increased intensity to illegal actions aimed at harming life and health, and jealousy acting as its basis serves as an excuse, the presence of which the subject considers justifying the destruction of the protected existence of other intangible benefits (for example, privacy, the right to create a family).

However, revenge based on jealousy is, rather, a way of self–affirmation in conditions when the personal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim is terminated, and the violent assault is committed on the basis of a desire to compensate for the cognitive dissonance that has arisen in the mind of the perpetrator. In support of this thesis, it is also possible to cite the specific legal positions of the courts.

For example, in case No. 43-UD21-19, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a ruling dated 01.02.2022, according to which it stated the immorality of the behavior of the victim, who, while married, maintained a relationship with her lover. Convicted under paragraph "a" of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the spouse of the victim, according to the court, committed a crime motivated by jealousy, resentment and personal hostility, but not in a state of passion, because in fact he no longer maintained marital relations with her, lived separately. In this case, the court found that he objected to the divorce, but the victim did not want to keep the family. In other words, the intellectual component of the convict's intent included awareness of the termination of marital relations, but he also assumed himself to be "competent" to carry out violence against his wife and her acquaintance.

In relation to situations where there is no marital relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, the courts generally do not focus on the immorality of treason, but reflect both jealousy and revenge as a basis for the emergence of intent to commit a violent crime. For example, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its resolution No. 335p2001pr dated 23.05.2001 stressed that the convict was guided by both of these feelings when, returning home, he found his cohabitant sleeping on a bed with another man and inflicted multiple fatal wounds to both. At the same time, the conflicts between the convict and the victim were constant, he was absent from home, because he was detained after he started a quarrel with a cohabitant, and she was forced to call police officers. In Resolution No. 466-P06 of 10/25/2006, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the convict, guided by a sense of jealousy and revenge, inflicted multiple blows with an axe to a man whom he found sleeping on a bed with his ex-wife; at the same time, the convict reliably knew that she was going to marry this man and was already living together. In the above situations, the motive of jealousy and revenge was realized both in relation to two persons and in relation to one. From this it can be concluded that by committing a violent crime, the subject considers himself in a fully structured or truncated format to compensate for the negative experiences that have arisen in connection with the termination of personal relations with the object of sympathy. Jealousy and revenge, indeed, in such cases are identified to the point of confusion. 

Interpersonal conflict involves conflict interaction of two or more parties [17, p. 70]. As a "state of personality structure" [18, p. 45], it reflects different value orientations and, as it seems, different perceptions of the same values due to the position of an individual in a social group and his inner worldview. Emotional states generated by jealousy and revenge neutralize the idea of the inadmissibility of aggression and violence. Interpersonal conflict as a means of resolving contradictions [19, p. 11] hardly has an application to socially dangerous behavior.

Summing up, we can conclude that jealousy, revenge or a combination of them play an important role in the formation of motivation for violent crimes, the condition for the commission of which is interpersonal conflict. At the same time, the consciousness of the subject has a distorted perception of the essence of moral norms, due to which a tolerant attitude towards violence addressed to the second participant in the conflict is formed. The intellectual element of the perpetrator's intent is "fueled" by false notions of self-esteem, loyalty, justice, so that he considers himself "competent" to use violence.

The revealed features of criminal behavior are of interest for further developments in the field of prevention of interpersonal conflicts. Taking into account the process of formation of motivation for violent crimes, in the center of which is an arbitrary perception of moral and disregard for legal norms, is necessary for the correct qualification of the deed and the determination of a fair penalty.

References
1. Antonyan, Yu. M., Brazhnikov, D. A., Goncharova, M. V., Kovalenko, V. I., Shiyan, V. I., Bitsadze, G. E., Evseev, A. V. A comprehensive analysis of the state of crime in the Russian Federation: an analytical review. M.: FGKU "VNII MVD Rossii", 2018. 86 p.
2. Theoretical foundations of the analysis and research of latent crime: monograph / ed. S. N. Inshakova. M.: UNITI-DANA, 2011. 839 p.
3. Grishina, NV Psychology of conflict. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2008. 544 p.
4. Shadrina, L. V. Criminal law and criminological characteristics of the threat of murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm. M.: Prospekt, 2013. 172 p.
5. Shestakov, D. A. Family criminology (criminology). St. Petersburg: Legal center press, 2003. 304 p.
6. Ivanov, A. L. Questions of qualifying the murder of two or more persons (clause “a”, part 2, article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) // Russian investigator. 2019. No. 3. S. 46-50.
7. Anoshchenkova, S. V. The mechanism of legitimation of moral norms (criminal legal aspect) // Actual problems of Russian law. 2016. No. 8. Pp. 33-47.
8. Gertsenzon, A. A. The concept of crime in Soviet criminal law. M.: Gosyurizdat, 1955. 416 p.
9. Piontkovsky, A. A. The course of Soviet criminal law. A common part. M.: Gosjurizdat, 1961. 498 p.
10. Antonyan, Yu. M., Kudryavtsev, V. N., Eminov, V. E. The identity of the offender. St. Petersburg: Legal center press, 2004. 366 p.
11. Tagantsev, N. S. Russian criminal law. A common part. Lectures. In 2 volumes. M.: Norma, 1994. T. 1. 402 p.
12. Gusev, D. A. The specifics of moral normativity // Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Series 6. “Political Science. International relationships". 2011. Issue. 2. S. 10-19.
13. Maksimov, L. V. Moral in the singular // Ethical Thought. 2014. V.
14. S. 5-24. 14. Apresyan, R. G. The phenomenon of universality in ethics: forms of conceptualization // Questions of Philosophy. 2016. No. 8. S. 79-88.
15. Vinokurov, V. N. Establishing the interests of the subjects of relations and specifying the object of the crime // Actual problems of Russian law. 2018. No. 12. P. 131-141.
16. Glistin, VK Problems of criminal law protection of public relations (object and qualification of a crime). L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1979. 127 p.
17. Kozyrev, G. I. Conflict potential of modern Russian society // Sociological research. 2017. No. 6. Pp. 68-78.
18. Antsupov, A. Ya. Conflict and personality in a changing world. Izhevsk, 2000. 242 p.
19. Moiseev, D. L. Psychological features of interpersonal conflicts in the relationship of civil servants and the conditions for their prevention: dis. ... cand. psychol. Sciences: 19.00.13. M., 1997. 255 p.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the presented article, as its name implies, is "Interpersonal conflicts motivated by jealousy or revenge as a condition for committing violent crimes." The author also clarifies that he "... conducts a study of the correlation of elements of jealousy and revenge in the structure of motivation for violent crimes committed on the basis of interpersonal conflict." The stated boundaries of the study are observed by the author. The methodology of the research is not fully disclosed to scientists: he points out that it is "... based on the criteria of dialectical cognition, as well as a set of generally recognized scientific methods, through which the ratio of criminal law and moral norms is set, based on the unacceptability of manifestations of criminal aggression motivated by jealousy or revenge." The author needs to list which specific general scientific and private scientific methods were used when writing the article. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is not clearly justified in the text of the work. He writes: "In legal doctrine and in criminological science, the study of the motivation of violent crimes and its connection with moral norms and emotional states based on feelings of jealousy and revenge, or a combination of them, is in high demand." However, the scientist does not note what gaps exist in these studies and what new things he introduces with his article to the domestic legal science. It would not be superfluous to list the names of the leading researchers currently dealing with the problems of interest to the author. The scientist does not directly say what the scientific novelty of the study is. In fact, the article is largely descriptive in nature, which is partly confirmed by the author's references to certain theoretical works used by him when writing the article. The scientist needs to clarify some of the provisions of the work, which will be discussed in more detail below, as well as strengthen their argumentation. The scientific style of the article is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the author makes an attempt to substantiate the relevance of his chosen research topic, indicates some of the research methods he used. The main part of the work is devoted to the study of the correlation of the elements of jealousy and revenge in the motivation structure of violent crimes committed on the basis of interpersonal conflict. The final part of the article contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the work generally corresponds to its title, but is not without some drawbacks. As already noted, the introductory part of the work needs to be finalized. The author needs to explain to readers why conflict situations can become a "condition" rather than a reason for committing violent crimes. The scientist quotes: "Acts that did not entail consequences in the form of death or serious harm to the health of the victim have a high latency, since due to personal relationships the victims do not seek to convict the perpetrators," but does not explain to the readership by virtue of which personal relationships the victims do not seek to convict the perpetrators and whether there are any otheror factors influencing such victimized behavior. The author should avoid continuous references to the sources used in writing the article (this is found both in the introductory and in the main parts of the work). The scientist writes: "It should also be noted that when committing a specific crime, the motivation of the subject is not obvious, and in this case it seems appropriate to raise the question of the perception of his actions by moral norms." The norms of morality, of course, cannot perceive anything themselves. People perceive it from the point of view of morality. Such categorical judgments should be avoided: "In practice, there are cases when a particularly serious violent crime (for example, murder) is committed for no reason." A crime is not committed without reason. Another thing is that its causes may be latent, hidden from the eyes of others, "not obvious". The author needs to reveal in more detail his position on the relationship between illegality and immorality. How is the concept of "immorality" interpreted from the point of view of doctrine in the general legal sense? Are there any industry-specific interpretations of this concept? The scientist needs to offer original definitions of the concepts of "jealousy" and "revenge". The bibliography of the study is presented by 16 sources (monographs, scientific articles, analytical review, textbooks). From a formal and factual point of view, this is enough. The advantages of the work include illustrating a number of its provisions with materials of judicial practice. There is an appeal to the opponents (A. A. Herzenzon, A. A. Piontkovsky, Yu. M. Antonyan, etc.), however, scientists do not carry out a detailed analysis of their positions on controversial issues, the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches proposed in the scientific literature are not analyzed. In this part, the article needs to be finalized. Conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the entire study are available ("... jealousy, revenge or a combination of them play an important role in the formation of motivation for violent crimes, the condition for the commission of which is interpersonal conflict. At the same time, the consciousness of the subject has a distorted perception of the essence of moral norms, due to which a tolerant attitude towards violence addressed to the second participant in the conflict is formed. The intellectual element of the perpetrator's intent is "fueled" by false notions of self-esteem, loyalty, and justice, so that he considers himself "competent" to use violence") and deserves the attention of the readership. The article also needs additional proofreading by the author. There are typos and stylistic errors in it. The interest of the readership in the presented article can be shown, first of all, by specialists in the field of criminal law, criminology, victimology, legal conflictology, provided that it is finalized: additional justification of the relevance of the research topic, disclosure of its methodology, introduction of additional elements of scientific novelty and discussion, clarification of certain provisions of the work, strengthening their argumentation, elimination disadvantages in the design of the work.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The article is devoted to an urgent topic, and the proposed title reflects the essence of the problem that needs scientific research. In fact, the title of the article determines two points in the study: firstly, the emphasis on interpersonal conflicts, and secondly, on the conditions of committing violent crimes. Methodologically, this problem is completely solvable, therefore, initially the author has all the necessary opportunities to reveal the indicated perspective. Meanwhile, in the content of the article, which, by the way, is not very large in volume, rather designed in the spirit of theses than having the outline of a full-fledged article, there is a rather cursory and counterproductive analysis of scientific discourse on the topic: the author makes only 4 references to authors who in their works touched on the proposed topic in one way or another, At the same time, the emphasis is placed on the criminological aspect, and the conflicts themselves and the clarification of their nature in various research approaches remained outside the brackets of the author's theorizing, which cannot be considered sufficient for a full-fledged coverage of the problem. At the same time, as the author notes, within the framework of the article, "a study is being conducted on the correlation of elements of jealousy and revenge in the motivation structure of violent crimes committed on the basis of interpersonal conflict." As already noted above, the proposed research direction may well be objectified both at the expense of the theoretical level of reflection, and with the involvement of rich "criminological" material correlated with the empirical base of the work. At the same time, the description of the methodology does not reflect in any way the approaches (or approach) that allows solving the research tasks. The enumeration of methods is only a part of the methodology and does not exhaust it, but to some extent even complements it, therefore, this circumstance should be taken into account by the author when finalizing his material. Since the author appeals to judicial practice, it should also be emphasized which method was used when working with the data and results contained therein. In addition, it would be desirable to explain on what basis the choice of judicial practice was based to illustrate the generalizations present in the article. A very abrupt transition to the "practical" part of the work without proper theoretical and methodological analysis of the problem leaves the impression that the material is "raw" and has not yet been seriously finalized. We should not forget about the iron rule of scientific research, which says that theory and practice should go hand in hand. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of the problem of determining the content of the key concepts and categories used in the article is necessary, as well as a justification for the choice of research methodology and a description of the empirical base. These points will make the material holistic, well-founded, ensuring the completeness of the disclosure of the topic and with a clear formulation of the author's approach. By the way, in the analysis of scientific discourse, it is necessary to emphasize exactly how the author's concept fits into the context of the existing key directions in the study of the identified issues. In the second part of the work, we find a preponderance towards criminological analysis, and conflicts themselves fade into the background or disappear from the author's field of view altogether, so it is not entirely clear how the topic is planned to be further disclosed, because interpersonal conflicts are still mentioned in the wording of the title as a factor of crime, and besides, it is conflicts that are The subject of the study is not violent crimes at all. Based on this, it is necessary to change the structure of the work and arrange your material accordingly. Textbooks should be removed from the literature – it is well known that for reputable publications there is no need to refer to textbooks. A certain groundwork has been made for full-fledged work, but there are drawbacks that do not yet allow us to recommend the article for publication.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

In the peer-reviewed article "Interpersonal conflicts motivated by jealousy or revenge as a condition for committing violent crimes", the subject of the study exactly matches its title. The purpose of the study can be defined as follows: to study the correlation of the elements of jealousy and revenge in the motivation structure of violent crimes committed on the basis of interpersonal conflict. The research methodology does not fully correspond to sociology. The methodology of the research is based on the criteria of dialectical cognition. The author uses analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, abstraction and generalization, as well as formal logical and axiomatic methods to analyze the concepts stated in the title of the publication. Empirical confirmation of the provisions was based on a selective generalization of judicial practice in criminal cases of murders as the most serious violent crimes, in which the subject acts under the influence of motivation related to jealousy, revenge or personal hostility. In modern conditions, there is a clearly expressed need for knowledge about the essence and patterns of development of interpersonal conflicts, which can become a condition for the commission of violent crimes. Behind the commission of each crime is the personality of a particular criminal, the formation of which is the result of the action of a whole complex of criminogenic factors having a socio-psychological nature. In these conditions, the problem of motivation of criminal behavior, and especially violent behavior, has been and remains one of the most urgent. Therefore, the authors' appeal to the study of jealousy and revenge in the structure of motivation for violent crimes seems extremely relevant. The solution of the problem under consideration can help overcome the difficulties that have emerged in connection with the need to prevent this type of crime. The scientific novelty of the publication consists in the author's interpretation of the role of jealousy, revenge or their combination in the formation of motivation for violent crimes, the condition for the commission of which is interpersonal conflict. The article makes a reasonable conclusion in principle that in the above-mentioned crimes, the intellectual element of the perpetrator's intent is "fueled" by false ideas about self-esteem, loyalty, justice, so that he considers himself "competent" to use violence. But this conclusion is only partially correct, since the presented material allows it to be expanded. The undertaken study of the correlation of moral norms and tolerance to feelings of jealousy and revenge has a scientific novelty, expands doctrinal ideas about the unacceptability of violence motivated by these feelings. This publication is characterized by a general structuring and consistency of presentation. The bibliography as a whole is present at a sufficient level. The paper provides links to 19 publications. But the presented literature is more related to psychology, conflictology and jurisprudence, and not to sociology. The appeal to the main opponents from the field of sociology of conflict is not presented. Thus, the conclusions of the study are present. The work may be of interest to lawyers. The revealed features of criminal behavior are of interest for further developments in the field of interpersonal conflict prevention. The article "Interpersonal conflicts motivated by jealousy or revenge as a condition for committing violent crimes" has scientific and practical significance, but does not correspond to the declared direction of "sociological sciences".