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

Legal Studies
Reference:

Differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person: evolution in Russian criminal legislation

Vanyan Diana Nikolaevna

Postgraduate student; Department of Criminal Law and Criminology; Kuban State University

149 Stavropol str., Krasnodar, 350040, Russia

mail_23.rus@mail.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2024.9.71683

EDN:

APTUDK

Received:

11-09-2024


Published:

06-10-2024


Abstract: The subject of the study is to consider the issues of the evolution of Russian criminal legislation in terms of the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person. As the materials of the study, criminal law monuments of national history were selected, in the content of which the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person was carried out. The article presents a historical and legal review of the main sources of criminal law of the X-XX centuries in terms of the approach reflected in them to the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person and analyzes the formation of an appropriate mechanism of criminal law protection. Using the example of the monuments of Russian criminal law of the X–XX centuries, the features of the construction of qualified and privileged elements of crimes against the person, the ways of their construction and presentation in the text of the criminal law are considered. To conduct an objective and comprehensive review of the chosen topic, the article used such general scientific and private scientific methods as analysis, generalization, historical, formal legal, comparative legal. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that, taking into account the retrospective approach, the historical experience of the formation of the institution of differentiation of criminal liability for attacks on life, health, freedom, honor, dignity and other protected values is traced and the process of consistent regulatory and legal registration of differentiating criminal liability features is reflected. In conclusion, the author concludes that the process of constructing differentiating criminal liability features dates back to the legislation of Ancient Russia, and their subsequent regulation maintained a certain continuity throughout the development of Russian criminal legislation. The differentiation of responsibility, despite its long history, currently remains the main method of criminal law policy, the application of which, including to the crimes under consideration, requires further reflection and improvement.


Keywords:

personality, crimes against the person, crimes against health, murder, honor and dignity, sexual crimes, differentiation, differentiation of criminal liability, qualifying signs, privileged features

This article is automatically translated.

Crimes against the person were committed in primitive society. With the appearance of the first forms of social organization (kindred, neighboring communities), members of society inevitably came into contact with each other and often in conflict and violent forms, acquiring a socially dangerous character [1, p. 22]. The mechanism of countering such forms of interaction in the early stages remained primitive and, as a rule, included only legal customs (the talion principle, blood feud, etc.). However, as a result of the emergence of Russian statehood and the development of law, written criminal law prohibitions began to appear, which differentiated responsibility for attacks against a person.

The relevance of the research topic lies in the fact that attention has been paid to the issue of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person since ancient times and today we can talk about the whole institution in this field, which, despite its long history of formation, remains the main and main method of criminal law policy.

The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that its results may be of interest to specialists in the field of criminal law, as well as teachers and students of law schools and faculties interested in the differentiation of criminal liability.

The purpose of the study is to study the evolution of Russian criminal legislation in the field of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person. The objectives of the research are: to conduct a historical and legal review of the main sources of criminal law of the X-XX centuries in terms of the approach reflected in them to the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person; to analyze the formation of an appropriate mechanism of criminal law protection; to consider, on the example of historical monuments of Russian criminal law, the features of the construction of qualified and privileged compositions of crimes against the person, methods of their construction and presentation in the text of the criminal law.

To conduct an objective and comprehensive consideration of the chosen topic, the article uses such general scientific and private research methods as dialectical, logical, historical, comparative legal, formal legal, etc. The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical methods of scientific cognition: abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, and the use of typology, classification, systematization and generalization can also be noted.

The result of the study was the formation of the author's periodization of the evolution in Russian criminal legislation of the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person.

A comprehensive study of the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person, in the context of the evolution of Russian criminal legislation, has not been conducted by domestic criminologists. Such authors as D.J. Gostkova, E.V. Kaburneev, M.N. Kaplin, K.A. Kretova, R.Y. Smirnov, and others made their own contribution to the study of the history of differentiation of criminal liability for crimes against life and health. Certain features (for example, motive, victim), as a means of differentiating criminal liability for crimes against personality, life or health, were considered by S.A. Markaryan, E.V. Pakhomova, etc.

The starting point of the development of Russian criminal law in the field of differentiation of responsibility for attacks against the person are the Treaties of Russia with Byzantium in 911 and 944. So, for example, the 911 Treaty provided for liability for murder (Article 4) and injury to health (Article 5). These acts were also mentioned in Article 6 ("... and the thief will be captured by the victim at the very time when he commits theft, while he resists and will be killed") and v. 8 ("if it happens that any of those who arrived on that boat will be killed or beaten by us..."). Similar criminal law prohibitions were contained in the Treaty of 944, and the novel was the criminalization of the enslavement of shipwrecked Greeks (Article 9) and the prohibition on the massacre of a murderer at the scene of a crime (Article 13).

The range of crimes against the person in Russian Pravda has significantly expanded. Thus, this legal act (a lengthy version according to the Trinity List) provided for criminal liability for committing crimes against life, against health, against freedom, honor and dignity.

The greatest attention was paid by the Russian Truth to the regulation of responsibility for murder as the most dangerous crime against life [6, p. 17]. This legal act, according to the correct remark of V.G. Balkova and D.A. Neretina, provided for two types of murder – murder "at a feast" (Article 6) and "murder on robbery without any quarrel" (Article 7) [3, p. 267]. The basis for the identification of these types of murders is based on signs of motive and form of guilt, differentiating murder into unintentional and intentional [5, p. 47; 7, p. 99]. The Russian Truth (Short edition) also distinguished the types of murders at the place of their commission – near a cage, a horse, a cow herd [8, p. 114].

Crimes against personal health included beatings and self-mutilation (amputation of limbs, fingers, deprivation of an eye). Individual encroachments of this category were isolated in independent norms depending on the instrument of the crime (Articles 23, 25). Infliction of death as a result of beatings was considered as a qualifying sign (Article 30).

The novel was the consolidation in the Russian Truth of the norms on responsibility for crimes against freedom, honor and dignity. Thus, an encroachment on human freedom was called enslavement (V. 54). Russian Truth also provided for responsibility for the kidnapping of the servant (Article 38).

A crime against honor and dignity, as T.N. Nurkayeva rightly notes, was considered a personal insult, which meant only beatings, but not a verbal form of humiliation [9, p. 7]. At the same time, the author does not note that this category of crimes included pulling out a beard (Article 67), the main direct object of which was considered dignity, although it implied bodily injury. Thus, according to S.S. Omelchenko, the norms of Russian Truth did not distinguish between crimes against health and honor, and the latter actually merged with bodily injury. Thus, only a real offense was recognized as an encroachment on honor [10, p. 240].

All crimes of the group in question were differentiated into attacks with aggravating or mitigating circumstances. As mentioned earlier, the criteria were the motive and form of guilt (murder in robbery), the instrument of the crime (infliction of bodily harm). In addition, the signs of the subject and the victim – their social and property status - should be considered as differentiating features.

Most of the legal norms of the Russian Truth were reflected in the sources of the period of centralization of the Russian state – the Judicial Records of 1497 and 1550. The object of the crime was not differentiated in these acts. Thus, in the Judicial Code of 1497, personal attacks were mentioned along with other types of crimes, including crimes against property (Articles 7-9, 38-39) [10, p. 54]. Qualified types of murders were distinguished – the murder of a gentleman committed by his servant ("the sovereign's murderer"), and a murder committed by a "driven dashing man". The novel of the Judicial Code of 1497 was the regulation of criminal liability for tattling ("malicious slander"), which was considered an insult to honor. Criminal liability for insulting by action and word was also provided for by the Judicial Code of 1550 (art. 25). In this regard, obviously, one cannot agree with N.E. Bespalov in the part that for the first time responsibility for libel was introduced in the Military Article [4, p. 149].

The differentiation of criminal liability for crimes against the person was further developed in the Cathedral Code of 1649. The elements of crimes against the person were described in Chapters XXI, XXII of this legal document. As before, among crimes against the person, murder received detailed regulation, the main and qualified components of which were formulated mainly in Articles 69-73 of Chapter XXI. First of all, murder was differentiated into intentional, entailing the death penalty (Article 72 of Chapter XXI), and unintentional ("not by intent in a fight, by drunken deed"), the penalty for which was determined depending on the presence of other subjective and objective signs. It seems that murder in a fight or while intoxicated should be considered as a privileged part of the murder, and the differentiation of responsibility for its commission was carried out on the basis of the subject and the victim. Thus, a peasant, when killing a peasant, was whipped, bailed out with a written obligation from the guarantors to prevent relapses and was transferred with his wife, children and property ("bellies") to the one from whom he killed a peasant (v. 73, Chapter XXI). Another punishment was provided for the boyar in the murder of a peasant – the transfer of the best peasant with his wife, children and property to the one from whom he killed the peasant (Article 71 of Chapter XXI). Qualified types of murder were also described in Chapter XXII of the Council Code.

The Conciliar Code of 1649 provided for liability for individual attacks on personal health – beatings and self-mutilation (for example, Articles 10, 11 of Chapter XXII). Beating parents was punishable by whipping (art. 4 ch. XXII).

An insult was considered an encroachment on the honor and dignity of a person, the objective side of which no longer merged with the infliction of bodily injury. Thus, the Conciliar Code of 1649 provided for liability for insulting with an "unbecoming word", that is, verbal humiliation directed against the honor of any person, up to the sovereign (Articles 99, 105 ch. X) [10, p. 244]. For the first time in the Cathedral Code of 1649, norms on criminal liability for sexual crimes appeared (for example, in Article 30 of Chapter VII, the composition of rape committed by a serviceman while following him into service was described).

The adoption of the Military Article in 1715 led to a tightening of the criminal law policy in the field of countering crimes against the person. This was mainly reflected in the normative construction of new qualified homicide compositions and the expansion of types of punishments.

For the commission of any murder according to the Military Article of 1715, the death penalty was provided, various forms of which were applied depending on the severity of the crime committed. Thus, simple murder was punishable by death in the form of beheading (Art. 154), and murder with aggravating signs, which included, for example, murder by poisoning, murder of parents and a child in infancy, murder in a duel, etc., – the death penalty by wheel, that is, the most painful form of its execution (Art. 161, 162, 163).

The death penalty was also provided for attempted suicide, which could be replaced by punishment in the form of expulsion from the regiment if the motive for the crime was torment, annoyance, shame or unconsciousness (Art. 164). Realized suicide was also considered a crime punishable by mockery of the corpse of the perpetrator ("drag his body to a dishonorable place and bury it, dragging it through the streets or a wagon train").

In the system of crimes against health, the military Article distinguished mutilation and beatings – stabbing with a knife, cane or hand on the cheek (Art. 85, 143-146). As before, these attacks were simultaneously considered as an insult by action, which is noticeable in the analysis of sanctions. So, for hitting another person with his hand on the cheek, punishment was imposed in the form of public humiliation – the culprit was publicly hit by a profos (a lower military rank who supervised the cleanliness of latrines, intimacy with him was humiliating) [5, p. 292]. Verbal humiliation was also an insult, including slander, the object of which was considered not the honor of a particular person, but the interests of the state, since honor in this historical period was inseparable from state or official position [10, p. 246]. Thus, insulting the tsar was punishable by confiscation of property and beheading (art. 20). The said legal act expanded the range of acts now recognized as sexual crimes, establishing criminal liability for involuntary sexual intercourse (art. 167-168).

Until the middle of the 19th century, the criminal legislation did not undergo any changes. However, the development of public relations and the accumulation of a large array of normative material predetermined the need for large–scale codification of legislation, which resulted in the publication of the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), rightly called the first Criminal Code, in which the General and Special Parts were distinguished [11, p. 70]. The norms providing for liability for attacks against the person were concentrated in the section. X Regulations ("On crimes against the life, health, freedom and honor of private individuals").

The Code divided murder into premeditated ("with premeditated intent or intent"), unintentional ("without premeditated intent or intent, in anger or irritation") and accidental ("not only without intent, but also without any carelessness"). As T.N. Nurkayeva points out, the Code described 41 types of qualified murders [9, p. 10]. Among the aggravating signs were the properties of the victim (murder of parents, children, spouse and other relatives; boss and master; pregnant woman – Articles 1920, 1922, 1923). Qualified murder compositions were also described in art. 1924 of the Code (murder by arson, destruction of buildings, shots fired into a crowd, poisoning; murder involving torture or torment; murder involving theft). When differentiating responsibility for murder, recidivism was also taken into account (Article 1921). Privileged types of murder included the murder of an illegitimate child by a mother at the very birth of an infant out of shame or fear (art. 1922), as well as murder in a fight and when exceeding the limits of necessary defense (art. 1936-1938). As before, suicide and attempted suicide were considered as crimes (chap. 2 sec. X of the Code).

Crimes against health were devoted to Chapter 3 of the section. X of the Code, which highlighted a fairly large list of encroachments of this type without building their system. Thus, the crimes against health included mutilation and wounds of varying severity (loss of vision, hearing, tongue, limbs and other parts of the body, indelible disfigurement of the face). When differentiating responsibility, various objective and subjective signs were taken into account – the motive, method and instrument of committing a crime, socially dangerous consequences (mutilation associated with torture; in a passion or irritation; entailed death, etc.).

The Code also expanded the list and created a system of sexual crimes, the specific object of which was considered honor, and the immediate honor and chastity of a woman (chap. 6 Sec. X). At the same time, when building their system, the age of the victim was taken into account, which allows us to talk about the division of sexual crimes into encroachments against sexual freedom and sexual integrity.

The Code also provided for liability for attacks on a person previously unknown to Russian criminal law – intentional termination of pregnancy without the consent and knowledge of a woman (Article 1932); a duel inflicted on someone (Article 1970); leaving a person in danger and not providing assistance to the deceased (Chapter 5 section X).

A new stage in the development of criminal legislation in the field of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person is associated with the adoption of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1922. The content of the murder included both intentional and reckless deprivation of life. The legislator perceived continuity in the regulation of qualifying and privileged signs of murder. When forming a system of aggravating signs, the motive (greed, jealousy and other base motives), the purpose (in order to facilitate or conceal another serious crime), the method of committing murder (generally dangerous or painful for the victim), as well as the properties of the subject and the victim (art. 142) were taken into account [2, p. 79]. The motive of compassion in the original version of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 was considered as a circumstance excluding criminal liability.

The Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 differentiated attacks on health according to the criterion of severity (severe, less severe, light). Other crimes of this group included reckless bodily injury, striking or other violent acts that caused physical pain. In addition, the system of attacks against health began to highlight the infection of another person with venereal disease, which was previously known to Russian law, but was considered an attack on public health.

The advantage of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 should be called a clearer regulation of responsibility for attacks on the honor and dignity of the individual. Thus, the legislator formulated the concept of libel (Article 174) and provided for liability for insult without giving its definition (Articles 172-173). Deliberately false denunciation, deliberately false testimony and hooliganism were also considered an encroachment on dignity.

Crimes against sexual freedom were concentrated in section 4 of Chapter 5. In addition to the elements of rape and sexual intercourse with minors, such crimes as intercourse involving the molestation and satisfaction of sexual passion in perverted forms (Article 167), coercion into prostitution (Article 170), pandering, the maintenance of brothels of debauchery, as well as the recruitment of women for prostitution (Article 171).

In many ways, the principles of building a system of crimes against the person and regulating responsibility for their commission were adopted by the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1926. The norms on responsibility for murder have not undergone significant changes, with the exception of some features of the presentation of dispositions of criminal law norms and tougher sanctions. The novel was the introduction since 1936 of a new composition of premeditated murder – murder committed by a serviceman under particularly aggravating circumstances, for which the death penalty was established in the form of execution (part 2 of Article 136). In addition, the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926 provided for liability for incitement to suicide (Part 1 of Article 141).

Separate changes affected the system of crimes against health – all bodily injuries in accordance with the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1926 were divided into two types: serious and light. In addition, the legislator introduced an additional feature for determining the severity of bodily injury – a health disorder associated with significant disability (Article 142).

The system of crimes against freedom, honor and dignity of the individual remained the same. It is important that the legislator in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1926 provided a detailed definition of libel, which is accepted by the current legislation. In addition to the previously known compositions of sexual crimes, the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926 provided for liability for sodomy (part 1 of Article 154-a), and the composition of rape was supplemented with new qualifying signs.

It is also worth noting that in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1926, the list of violations of citizens' rights was expanded, mainly in the field of labor relations (Article 133a).

The adoption of the new Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1960 marked the intensification of criminal law repression for attacks on the person. First of all, this is due to a significant revision and expansion of the list of qualified types of murder. Article 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960 consistently described 11 qualifying signs of murder, most of which are practically unchanged perceived by the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that all attacks on the person in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1960 were structurally isolated in a single chapter with a consistent statement of criminal law prohibitions. At the same time, the norms on responsibility for attacks on health were built in the form of a clear system that included: 1) crimes against health (Articles 108-115); 2) crimes endangering life and health (art. 116, 122, 124, 127-129) [9, p. 30]. In addition, the basis for the construction of this system was again based on the division of bodily injuries into severe, less severe and light.

The regulation of liability for crimes against freedom, honor and dignity has not undergone significant changes. Thus, the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1960 for the first time defined the concept of insult as a deliberate humiliation of the honor and dignity of a person expressed in an indecent form. In addition, the system of crimes against freedom was supplemented with two types of crimes – hostage-taking (Article 126.1) and kidnapping (Article 125.1).

Sufficient attention in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1960 was paid to the regulation of liability for encroachments on the rights of citizens, the list of which was fixed in an independent chapter (Chapter IV). Among them, independent elements of crimes encroaching on the personal life of citizens were provided (Articles 135-136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

While retaining, with minor changes, responsibility for crimes against the family and minors contained in the Criminal Code of 1926, the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960 provided for liability for a number of new, previously unknown, encroachments (Articles 124.1, 125.2, 210.2).

Many provisions of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, providing for liability for attacks against the person, were accepted by the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996, including continuity in the construction of their system and the presentation of relevant criminal law prohibitions. At the same time, the specifics of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996 became a completely different system of values, at the head of which the personality was put. This predetermined the isolation of all crimes against the person in a single section, which opens a Special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and is divided into specific chapters.

Thus, based on the study of the evolution of Russian criminal legislation in the field of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person, it is possible to formulate the author's periodization in this area:

1. The period of the origin of differentiation of criminal liability for attacks against a person (X century – the end of the XV century). The history of the development of Russian criminal legislation indicates that attention has been paid to the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person since ancient times, which is associated with the adoption of such legal acts as the Treaties of Russia with Byzantium in 911 and 944 and Russkaya Pravda. It is characterized by the appearance of separate signs in the latter, differentiating responsibility for these encroachments. These signs were regulated haphazardly, and the technique of their presentation was characterized by casuistry.

2. The period of legislative expansion of the signs differentiating criminal liability for crimes against the person (the end of the XV century.– the middle of the XIX century.). Is associated with the adoption of such legal acts as the Judicial Codes of 1497 and 1550, the Cathedral Code of 1649 and the Military Article of 1715. Its peculiarity was that the construction of qualified and privileged compositions of crimes against the person was carried out haphazardly, sometimes casually.

3. The period of formation of the system in the field of using the legal structure of qualified (privileged) structures, which was expressed in the consistent, but sometimes haphazard construction of new differentiating features, the number of which, in relation to individual attacks against the individual, amounted to several dozen (mid–XIX century - XX century). Associated with the adoption of the first codified criminal law in Russia, in which the General and Special parts were distinguished – the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845 .

4. The period of formation (formation) of the institute of differentiation of criminal liability for crimes against the person (the beginning of the XX century – 1996). Criminal legislation is characterized by the unification of the system of qualified (privileged) elements of crimes with a parallel reduction in the number of differentiating features and a departure from the casuistic presentation of criminal law prohibitions. This period is associated with the adoption of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1922, 1926 and 1960.

5. The period of development and optimization of the institution of differentiation of criminal liability for crimes against the person (1996 – our time). It is connected with the adoption of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996. It is characterized by the attitude towards this institution as the main and main method of criminal law policy, the application of which, including crimes against the person, requires further reflection and improvement.

References
1. Antonyan, Yu. M., & Zvizzhova, O. Yu. (2022). Crime in the history of mankind: monograph. Moscow.
2. Babichev, A. S. (2006). Legislation of Russia on crimes against life in the Soviet period. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, 2, 79-81.
3. Balkova, V. G., & Neretina, D. A. (2022). The system of crimes in medieval Russia: emergence and development. Law, economics and management: theory and practice: materials of the III All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference with international participation. Editor-in-chief E. V. Fomin (Cheboksary, June 23, 2022), 266–271. Cheboksary.
4. Bespalov, N. E. (2021). The history of the development of Russian legislation on crimes against freedom, honor and dignity of the individual. Modern science: topical issues, achievements and innovations: collection of articles of the XX International Scientific and Practical Conference (Penza, June 25, 2021), 147–151. Penza.
5. Isaev, I. A. (2004). History of the state and law of Russia: textbook. Moscow.
6. Kaplin, M. N. (2007). Differentiation of criminal liability for crimes against life and health: abstract. diss. ... cand. Jurid. Moscow.
7. Kretova, K. A. (2022). Crimes against personality and property in the criminal law of Kievan Rus. Development of customs affairs of the Russian Federation: Far Eastern vector: collection of scientific papers (Vladivostok, 05-27 April 2022), 97–102. Vladivostok.
8. Loba, V. E., & Malakhov S. N. (2011). Criminal law of Ancient Russia of the XI–XII centuries. (according to Russian Truth): monograph. Armavir.
9. Nurkaeva, T. N. (2017). Criminal law protection of the individual, his rights and freedoms: issues of theory and practice. Moscow.
10. Omelchenko, S. S. (2008). Insult and slander in the criminal law of Russia of the XI–XVII centuries. Actual problems of Russian law, 1, 240–246.
11. Shestopalov, A. P., Ҙ Fumm, A.M. (2015). The Code of Criminal and correctional punishments of 1845 in the system of sources of criminal law of the Russian Empire. Bulletin of the Moscow Humanitarian and Economic Institute, 3, 69–73.

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 article submitted for review is, as its name implies, the problem of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person. The author focused his attention on studying its evolution. The declared boundaries of the study have been observed by the scientist. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the article. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is not justified. Additionally, the researcher needs to list the names of the leading experts involved in the study of the problems raised in the article, as well as reveal the degree of their study. The scientific novelty of the work is manifested in the formation by the scientist of a holistic picture of the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the individual in a historical context. A number of the author's conclusions are of scientific interest: "All crimes of the considered group were differentiated into attacks with aggravating or mitigating circumstances. As mentioned earlier, the criteria were the motive and form of guilt (murder in robbery), the instrument of the crime (infliction of bodily harm). In addition, the signs of the subject and the victim – their social and property status - should be considered as differentiating features. Most of the legal norms of the Russian Truth were reflected in the sources of the period of centralization of the Russian state – the Judicial Records of 1497 and 1550. The object of the crime was not differentiated in these acts"; "For the first time in the Cathedral Code of 1649, norms on criminal liability for sexual crimes appeared (for example, in Article 30 of Chapter VII, the composition of rape committed by a serviceman while following him into service was described). The adoption of the Military Article in 1715 led to a tightening of the criminal law policy in the field of countering crimes against the person. This was mainly reflected in the normative construction of new qualified murder compositions and the expansion of types of punishments," etc. Thus, the article makes a certain contribution to the development of domestic legal science and, of course, deserves the attention of potential readers. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is not entirely logical in the sense that the introductory part of the study is missing. In the main part of the article, the author examines the evolution of criminal liability for crimes against the person and highlights its features. The final part of the work contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the article corresponds to its title and does not cause any particular complaints. The bibliography of the research is presented by 10 sources (monographs, dissertation, scientific articles, textbook). From a formal point of view, this is enough, but in general the article is descriptive. There is no appeal to opponents, which is unacceptable for a scientific article. The author refers to a number of theoretical sources to substantiate his judgments or to illustrate certain provisions of the work, but does not enter into a scientific discussion. There are conclusions based on the results of the study ("Thus, the history of the development of Russian criminal legislation indicates that the issue of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person has been given attention since ancient times. However, until the 20th century, the construction of qualified and privileged compositions of crimes against the person was carried out haphazardly, and the technique of presenting differentiating features was characterized by casuistry. With the development of Russian criminal legislation, the use of the legal structure of qualified (privileged) compounds has become systematic. This was expressed in the consistent, but sometimes haphazard, construction of new differentiating features, the number of which, in relation to individual attacks against a person, amounted to several dozen. The modern stage of development of the institution of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person (since the 20th century) is characterized by the unification of the system of qualified (privileged) crimes with a parallel reduction in the number of differentiating features and a departure from the casuistic presentation of criminal law prohibitions. The institute of differentiation of responsibility, despite its long history, and currently remains the main and main method of criminal law policy, the application of which, including to these crimes, requires further reflection and improvement"), have the properties of reliability, validity and undoubtedly deserve the attention of the scientific community. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of criminal law, the history of the national state and law, provided that it is finalized: disclosure of the research methodology, substantiation of the relevance of its topic, clarification of the structure of the work, introduction of elements of discussion.

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 subject of the study. In the peer-reviewed article "Differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person: evolution in Russian criminal legislation", the subject of the study is the norms of law establishing criminal liability for crimes against the person, including in historical retrospect. Research methodology. In the course of writing the article, modern research methods were used: general scientific and private (such as dialectical, logical, historical, comparative legal, formal legal, etc.). The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical methods of scientific cognition: abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, and it is also possible to note the use of typology, classification, systematization and generalization. The relevance of research. The topic of the article seems to be very relevant. We can agree with the author that "... the history of the development of Russian criminal legislation indicates that the issue of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person has been given attention since ancient times." It is also correctly noted that "... the institution of differentiation of responsibility, despite its long history, remains the main and main method of criminal law policy at the present time, the application of which, including to these crimes, requires further reflection and improvement." Doctrinal developments on this issue are important for improving modern domestic legislation and law enforcement. Scientific novelty. Without questioning the importance of previous scientific research, which served as the theoretical basis for this work, nevertheless, it can be noted that this article also contains provisions that are characterized by scientific novelty, for example: "... The current stage of development of the institute of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person (since the XX century) is characterized by the unification of the system of qualified (privileged) elements of crimes with a parallel reduction in the number of differentiating features and a departure from the casual presentation of criminal law prohibitions." The article presents other research results that deserve attention from the point of view of practical significance. The results of this study can be assessed as a definite contribution to the domestic legal science. Style, structure, content. In general, the article is written in a scientific style using special legal terminology. The requirements for the volume of the article are met. The content of the article corresponds to its title. The article is structured. However, it cannot be said that the introduction meets the established requirements for this part of the scientific article. The introduction should indicate the relevance and practical significance of the study, the goals and objectives of the study, research methods, and research results. In this part, the article needs to be finalized. In addition, the conclusion should present the specific results of the study, and not be limited to a general conclusion. The remarks are disposable and do not detract from the work done by the author. Bibliography. The author has used a sufficient number of doctrinal sources, including recent years. References to sources are designed in compliance with the requirements of the bibliographic GOST. Appeal to opponents. The article presents a scientific controversy. Appeals to opponents are correct, decorated with links to the sources of publication. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article "Differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person: evolution in Russian criminal legislation" submitted for review can be recommended for publication with the condition of finalizing the introduction and conclusion on the requirements for publications in scientific journals (presented on the publisher's website). The article is written on an urgent topic, is characterized by scientific novelty and has practical significance. A publication on this topic could be of interest to a readership, primarily specialists in the field of criminal law, and also could be useful for teachers and students of law schools and faculties.

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.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person: evolution in Russian criminal legislation". The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person. The author of the reviewed article consistently studies historical documents, legal acts of various historical periods on the topic of research, which at the end of the article allowed to formulate the author's periodization in this area. The specific subject of the study was, first of all, the norms of legislation, legal acts of various historical periods, and the opinions of scientists. Research methodology. The purpose of the research is stated directly in the article. The author states that "The purpose of the study is to study the evolution of Russian criminal legislation in the field of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person." Based on the goals and objectives set by the author, the methodological basis of the study was chosen. Thus, it is noted that "In order to conduct an objective and comprehensive consideration of the chosen topic, the article uses such general scientific and private research methods as dialectical, logical, historical, comparative legal, formal legal, etc. The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical methods of scientific cognition: abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, and the use of typology, classification, systematization and generalization can also be noted." In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, induction, and others. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and share the conclusions of various scientific approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw specific conclusions from the materials of practice. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author actively applied the formal legal method, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of current legislation. For example, the following conclusion of the author: "Many provisions of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, providing for liability for attacks against the person, were accepted by the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996, including continuity in the construction of their system and the presentation of relevant criminal law prohibitions. At the same time, the specifics of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996 became a completely different system of values, at the head of which the personality was put. This predetermined the isolation of all crimes against the person in a single section, which opens a Special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and is divided into specific chapters." The most important role in the context of the purpose of the study, of course, was played by the historical method, which made it possible to compare legal regulation in different historical periods. In particular, the following author's conclusion should be noted: "The starting point of the development of Russian criminal law in the field of differentiation of responsibility for attacks against the person are the Treaties of Russia with Byzantium in 911 and 944. So, for example, the 911 Treaty provided for liability for murder (Article 4) and injury to health (Article 5). These acts were also mentioned in Article 6 ("... and the thief will be captured by the victim at the very time when he commits theft, while he resists and will be killed") and v. 8 ("if it happens that any of those who arrived on that boat will be killed or beaten by us..."). Similar criminal law prohibitions were contained in the Treaty of 944, and the novel was the criminalization of the enslavement of shipwrecked Greeks (Article 9) and the prohibition on the massacre of a murderer at the scene of a crime (Article 13)." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the study, allows you to study all aspects of the topic in its entirety. Relevance. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. There are both theoretical and practical aspects of the significance of the proposed topic. From the point of view of theory, the topic of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person is complex and ambiguous. One of the directions for its study should be the study of the problem, taking into account trends and directions of development, which involves the study of historical experience. It is difficult to argue with the author that "The relevance of the research topic lies in the fact that attention has been paid to the issue of differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person since ancient times and today we can talk about the whole institution in this field, which, despite its long history of formation, remains the main and main one at the present time by the method of criminal law policy." Thus, scientific research in the proposed field should only be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. Firstly, it is expressed in the author's specific conclusions. Among them, for example, is a conclusion that assumes periods of development of legislation on the issues under consideration. Thus, "The period of formation of the system in the field of using the legal structure of qualified (privileged) structures is highlighted, which was expressed in the consistent, but sometimes haphazard construction of new differentiating features, the number of which, in relation to individual attacks against the individual, amounted to several dozen (mid–XIX century - XX century). Associated with the adoption of the first codified in Russia the Criminal Law, which highlighted the General and Special parts – the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845." This and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Secondly, the author provides generalizations of historical documents and legal acts, which may be useful to specialists in the field under consideration. Thus, the materials of the article may be of particular interest to the scientific community in terms of contributing to the development of science. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Legal Studies", as it is devoted to legal problems related to the genesis of the development of criminal legislation in Russia. The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, as the author has considered the stated problems, and has generally achieved the purpose of the study. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as fully positive. The subject, objectives, methodology and main results of the study follow directly from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by authors from Russia (Antonyan Yu.M., Balkova V.G., Neretina D.A., Zvizzhova O.Yu., Loba V.E., Malakhov S.N., Bespalov N.E. and others). Many of the cited scientists are recognized scholars in the field of the history of Russian criminal law. I would like to note the author's use of a large number of materials of judicial practice, which made it possible to give the study a law enforcement orientation. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of various aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. All quotes from scientists are accompanied by author's comments. That is, the author shows different points of view on the problem and tries to argue for a more correct one in his opinion. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are fully logical, as they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the issues of the historical development of Russian legislation regarding the differentiation of responsibility for crimes against the person. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend publishing"