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:

The Insignificance of the Act in Criminal Law and the Social Danger of the Individual

Slepnev Fedor

4th year student, Faculty of Law, Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY "Higher School of Economics"

123022, Russia, federal city of Moscow, Moscow, lane. Bolshoy Trekhsvyatelsky, 3

fyuslepnev@edu.hse.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2022.10.38732

EDN:

DPYJKB

Received:

07-09-2022


Published:

06-11-2022


Abstract: The article is devoted to the issues of taking into account the social danger of the individual when differentiating minor acts and crimes. The subject of the work is the norms of law governing the institution of the insignificance of an act in criminal law, as well as law enforcement practice that develops in connection with the application of the norms on the insignificance of an act. In the course of the study, the author examines the evolution of Soviet and post-Soviet criminal legislation in terms of the norms governing the insignificance of the act, as well as the legal technique of their construction. Particular attention is paid to the study of heterogeneous law enforcement practice in the context of the issue of accounting for the identity of the perpetrator in the differentiation of minor acts and crimes. The research was conducted on the basis of universal dialectical, logical, formal-legal and historical-legal research methods.The scientific novelty of the research consists in the fact that the author presents a theoretical justification of the approach, according to which personality traits cannot influence the resolution of the issue of the insignificance of the act and suggests an original practical way to implement this approach in the form of legislative changes, which subsequently positively affect law enforcement practice and contributes to its uniformity. The main result of the study is a proposal to amend the current criminal legislation, in particular, it is recommended to amend Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and add Part 3, which will meaningfully consolidate the above approach and thus bring judicial practice to uniformity.


Keywords:

insignificance, act, character, features, personality, public danger, harm, the consequences, accounting, data

This article is automatically translated.

The insignificance of the act acts as a legal institution reflecting the desire of the legislator to more accurately assess the relevance of the application of criminal law measures. So, if there are signs of a crime in the act, a person can be brought to criminal responsibility, but at the same time it is necessary to decide on the expediency of such involvement [1, p. 135].

         In the current version of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the institute of insignificance is fixed in Part 2 of Article 14 (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation No. 63-FZ of 13.06.1996 (ed. No. 63-FZ of 25.03.2022) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation.  1996. No. 25. St. 2954.). Formulating a legal norm, the legislator differentiates minor acts and crimes on the basis of the public danger of what he has done, but does not provide specific criteria, focusing on which the courts could most accurately apply the proposed institution. The works of Ch. M. Bagirov, A. Y. Gordeev, V. I. Tyunin and other scientists are devoted to the problem of determining criteria and signs of insignificance of an act [2, 3, 4]. However, the question of taking into account personality traits when distinguishing minor acts and crimes remains open.

         Considering the Soviet criminal legislation, it can be traced that earlier the legislator tried to formulate a certain criterion for differentiating minor acts and crimes. Article 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (hereinafter referred to as the RSFSR Criminal Code) of 1926 firmly linked insignificance with the absence of socially dangerous consequences (Resolution of the Central Executive Committee of 22.11.1926 "On the introduction of the Criminal Code of the R.S.F.S.R. edition of 1926" (together with the "Criminal Code of the R.S.F.S.R.") // SPS "ConsultantPlus". URL: http://www.consultant.ru (accessed: 01.09.2022)).

However, in the future, the position of the legislator has changed. Substantial changes can be observed in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1960, where there is no longer a clear link between the public danger of consequences and insignificance, which has been preserved in the modern version of the Criminal Code ("Criminal Code of the RSFSR" (approved by the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR 27.10.1960) (ed. from 30.07.1996) // SPS "ConsultantPlus". URL: http://www.consultant.ru (accessed: 01.09.2022)).

         This uncertainty of the legislator causes instability of law enforcement practice. Despite the fact that the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) in the Definition of 23.06.2020 in the case N 46–UD20-9 formulated a position according to which the personality traits and post-criminal behavior of the perpetrator are not circumstances characterizing the insignificance of the act, law enforcement practice has not become uniform (Definition of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 23.06.2020 in the case N 46-UD20-9 // SPS "ConsultantPlus". URL: http://www.consultant.ru (accessed: 01.09.2022)).

         Thus, the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction in the Ruling of 28.10.2020 in case No. 7U-14579/2020 [77-2678/2020], when deciding to recognize the act as insignificant, agreed with the position of the court of appeal, taking into account the data on the identity of the accused person (The ruling of the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction of 28.10.2020 in case No. 77-2678/2020 // Website of the Sixth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction. URL:  https://goo.su/iilQ4Z3 (accessed: 02.09.2022)).

         The Biysk City Court of the Altai Territory, in a Resolution dated 08.06.2022 in case No. 10-33/2022, decided to recognize the deed as a minor act, taking into account the personality characteristics of the accused person, namely: family and financial situation (Resolution of the Biysk City Court of the Altai Territory dated 08.06.2022 in case No.10-33/2022 // Biysk website city Court of the Altai Territory. URL: https://biyskygoralt.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo&srv_num=1&name_op=doc&number=170880506&delo_id=1540006&new=0&text_number=1 (accessed: 02.09.2022)).

         Moreover, the definition of the Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, mentioned above, competes with the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation), formulated in the resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 10, 2017 N 2–P, where the court explicitly states that such personality traits as the immunity of a person to a previous measure of responsibility, repeated the nature of the commission of an offense may serve as grounds for criminalizing the relevant act (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 10.02.2017 N 2-P "In the case of checking the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of citizen I.I. Dadin" // SPS "ConsultantPlus". URL: http://www.consultant.ru (accessed: 01.09.2022)).

         The doctrine of criminal law also does not have a unified approach with regard to the issue of taking into account personality traits when differentiating minor acts and crimes. V. V. Stepanov points out that taking into account personal data is necessary [5, p. 186]. While O. O. Novik adheres to the opposite point of view, having the conviction that taking into account personal data when resolving the issue of the insignificance of an act leads to a violation of the constitutional principle of equality of all before the law [6, p. 349]. Y. E. Pudovochkin points out that the characteristics of the personality of the perpetrator can be taken into account only within the individualization of punishment [7, p. 62].

     Accordingly, the relevance of the research topic goes back to the existing uncertainty in law enforcement practice, the doctrine of criminal law regarding the issue of taking into account the character and personality traits when differentiating insignificant acts and crimes, as well as the need for further research and clarification of the criteria for the insignificance of the act. 

         Let's move on to the substantive part of the study. Substantiation of the position according to which the properties and qualities of a person should not be taken into account when differentiating insignificant acts and crimes, it is worth starting with a study of the legal nature of the insignificance of the act through the prism of interpretation of legislative structures that consolidate the proposed institution.

So, it would be fair to say that there is a connection between the personality, the qualities of this person, the act that was committed and the criminal legal assessment that the court will formulate based on the results of consideration of a particular case.

However, the meaning of the institution of insignificance is to exempt from criminal liability a person who has committed an act that does not have a public danger. In other words, within the framework of the institute, an act is considered and analyzed for the absence of public danger, due to the absence of harmful negative consequences, or for other reasons. Such an understanding of the essence of the institution of the insignificance of an act can be made by evaluating the legal technique of constructing the norm enshrined in Part 2 of Article 14, where the legislator, in accordance with the literal interpretation, understands by an insignificant act an action or inaction that does not have a public danger.

Accordingly, considering a person as a category conceivably separable from a criminal act, it can be concluded that the nature and properties of a person cannot act as a criterion for distinguishing insignificant acts from crimes, since within the framework of the institute of insignificance, the law enforcement officer, within the meaning of the criminal law, must evaluate precisely the qualities and properties of the deed (the public danger of the act and the public danger of the consequences).

Another argument in favor of the position of the inexpediency of taking into account personal data when differentiating minor acts and crimes is related to the general theoretical representation of the doctrine of criminal law on the principles of criminal responsibility.

         Thus, personality traits cannot influence the resolution of issues of establishing criminal responsibility [8, p. 227].

The public danger of a person, being an objective category, should undoubtedly be assessed when choosing the type and size of criminal impact, since the public danger of a person lies not only in the fact that a person was able to commit a criminal act, but also in the fact that he is able, under certain circumstances, to do the same again.

         Accordingly, the accounting of personal data is necessary within the framework of individualization of punishment, when the issues of assigning a proportionate and fair punishment are resolved, contributing to the achievement of the goals of criminal responsibility: the re-education of the guilty person and the prevention of subsequent crimes. However, this reflects a certain limit of the criminal-legal significance of the character and personality traits of the perpetrator.

         It is worth agreeing with the position of Yu. A. Demidov, according to which the public danger of the criminal's personality is determined by the public danger of the act. Thus, in case of loss of the public danger of the act, the negative quality of the person also loses its criminal legal significance [9, p. 92].

         The proposed reasoning is related to the general principle of establishing criminal responsibility: only acts are criminalized. In the opposite case, we would be faced with a violation of the constitutional principle of equality of all persons before the law, from the point of view that the law enforcement officer would recognize as criminals certain categories of persons with specific social or psychophysical qualities that, in their opinion, are a public danger.

         Accordingly, if personality traits cannot influence the resolution of issues of establishing criminal responsibility, since only acts are subject to criminalization, and personality traits characterized as socially dangerous are determined by the social danger of the act, then it can be argued that personal data also cannot influence the refusal to bring to criminal responsibility due to the insignificance of the act.

         Returning to the existing discussion in the doctrine of criminal law regarding the issue of taking into account personality traits when differentiating minor acts from crimes, it is still worth considering a rather popular point of view reflected in the work of V. V. Stepanov.

         Thus, the author argues that the lack of consideration of personal data in the differentiation of minor acts and offenses leads to the deprivation of the law enforcement officer of one of the criteria that allows for more accurate application of the proposed institution. The scientist also sees the prospect of a certain abuse of law, since it creates an opportunity for whole categories of citizens with stable antisocial attitudes to systematically commit actions that have signs of a crime, but due to their insignificance are not legal violations and thus cause more and more harm to protected social values and at the same time not be subjected to legal measures [5, pp. 187-188].

         In my opinion, the proposed negative consequences take place exclusively within the framework of the concept, according to which the recognition of an act as insignificant mediates the impossibility of bringing a person to another type of responsibility, since it is assumed that there is no corpus delicti in principle. This position was popular during the Soviet period, and is also reflected in some works of modern authors, for example, V. N. Vinokurov writes that insignificance is characterized by an absolute absence of public danger, which limits any legal impact and does not allow bringing a person to administrative or other responsibility [10, p. 76].

         However, the proposed concept of the legal nature of insignificance is not, in my opinion, correct. Considering the insignificance of an act from the point of view of the legal technique of constructing a legal norm enshrined in Part 2. Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it can be noted that the legislator does not impose the above restrictions, describing an insignificant act as an action or omission that is not a crime.

Such an understanding of the essence of the insignificance of an act is indisputably correct, since actions (inaction) can be repeatedly graded according to the degree of public danger and differentiated into crimes and other types of offenses. Accordingly, such an approach assumes a wider range of ranking of offenses and admits that the same act may be insignificant within the framework of criminal law, but from the point of view of the norms of another branch of law, it constitutes an offense, which mediates the need for legal measures.

The proposed position is also confirmed by the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in particular the position formulated in the Ruling of July 16, 2013 N 1162-O, where the court indicates that if there are sufficient circumstances, a person who committed a minor act may be brought to another type of responsibility (administrative or disciplinary) (The Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation from 16.07.2013 N 1162-O "On refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Filimonov Dmitry Ivanovich for violation of his constitutional rights by part two of Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" // SPS "ConsultantPlus". URL: http://www.consultant.ru (accessed: 03.09.2022)).

Despite the theoretical understanding of the problem of taking into account the personality traits of a person when differentiating insignificant acts and crimes, the question remains open about the practical implementation of the approach according to which personality traits should not be taken into account when the court examines an act for insignificance.

To return to the construction of the institute of insignificance, reflected in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926, where the absence of socially dangerous consequences in the form of material or non-material harm was the exclusive criterion for the insignificance of an act, does not seem theoretically justified.

As M. I. Kovalev points out, only the statement of the continuity of insignificance and the absence of socially dangerous consequences means the absence of any offense [1, p. 139]. Accordingly, the exclusivity of the proposed criterion for differentiating insignificant acts and crimes is possible only in the paradigm of understanding an insignificant act as an action (inaction) that does not have a social danger in principle. However, as it was indicated in the paper earlier, such an understanding of insignificance has no theoretical justification and does not meet the current trends in the development of criminal legislation within the framework of the proposed institute.

The exclusivity of socially dangerous consequences as a criterion of an insignificant act is also questioned from the point of view of the analysis of modern law enforcement practice. V. N. Vinokurov notes that when deciding on the application of norms on insignificance by courts, in addition to the public danger of consequences, the purpose and method of committing the act are taken into account [10, p. 79].

F. N. Sotskov, within the framework of the significance of alternative criteria for the insignificance of an act, goes further and cites individual cases where courts distinguish between an insignificant act and a crime, without taking into account the public danger of consequences and take into account the purpose and method of committing the act as independent criteria that determine the insignificance of the deed [11, p. 68].

Accordingly, it is necessary to find another way of leveling the consideration of personality traits by the courts when applying the norm on the insignificance of the act. One of the rational ways can be a change in the norm devoted to the insignificance of the act and the introduction of a direct ban on taking into account the character and characteristics of the individual. Such a method, on the one hand, will be able to effectively consolidate the theoretically justified approach of the impossibility of taking into account personality traits when differentiating minor acts and crimes, and on the other hand, it will ensure the flexibility of the norm and the possibility of further evolution of law enforcement practice within the framework of identifying new criteria for a minor act.

Thus, summarizing all of the above, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. In the course of the study, an approach is theoretically justified, according to which personality traits should not be taken into account when differentiating minor acts and crimes.

2. For the purpose of practical consolidation of the proposed approach, the current version of Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be amended and Part 3 should be introduced with the following content: "Circumstances related to the identity of the person who committed the act and not directly related to the deed are not circumstances characterizing the insignificance of the act."

3. A change in criminal legislation within the framework of the insignificance of the act will have a positive impact on law enforcement practice, contributes to its uniformity.

References
1. Kovalev, M. I. (1987). The concept of crime in Soviet criminal law. Sverdlovsk: Publishing house Ural, un-ta.
2. Bagirov, C. M. (2019). Objective factors of insignificance of an act. Legal Science, 11, 43–49.
3. Gordeev, A. Y. (2018). Problems of practical application of the institute of insignificance of an act in Russian and foreign criminal law. Law and State: Theory and Practice, 9 (165), 131–132.
4. Tyunin, V. I. (2020). On the insignificance of an act in criminal law and criminal law. Criminal law, 4, 69–76.
5. Stepanov, V.V. (2007). Evaluation of the circumstances characterizing the personality when deciding on the recognition of an offense as insignificant. Bulletin of the Perm University. Legal Sciences, 8, 186–189.
6. Novik, O. O. (2013). On the issue of determining the criteria for recognizing an act as insignificant. Science-Education, Production, Economics, 348–350.
7. Pudovochkin, Y. E. (2019). Assessment of the degree of public danger in establishing the insignificance of an act (based on judicial practice). Russian Justice, 8, 59–75. doi:10.17238/issn2072-909X.2019.8.59-75
8. Prozumentov, L. M. (2018). The prevalence of acts as an optional sign of their social danger. Bulletin of the Tomsk State University, 429, 227–230. doi:10.17223/15617793/429/30
9. Demidov, Y. A. (1975). Social value and assessment in criminal law. Moscow: Yurid. lit.
10. Vinokurov, V. N. (2014). Insignificance of an act in criminal law: signs and forms. Journal of Russian law, 4 (208), 74–83. doi:10.12737/2921
11. Sotskov, F. N. (2009). Social danger of an act in the criminal law of Russia (Candidate’s thesis). Retrieved from https://www.dissercat.com/content/obshchestvennaya-opasnost-deyaniya-v-ugolovnom-prave-rossii

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, consists of closely related controversial issues about the insignificance of an act in criminal law and the social danger of an individual. The article is named by the author as follows: "The insignificance of the act and the social danger of the individual." It is necessary to emphasize that we are talking about the insignificance of an act in criminal law. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the work, however, it is obvious that the scientist used universal dialectical, logical, formal-legal and historical-legal research methods when writing the article. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is defined in the article very briefly: "When formulating a legal norm, the legislator differentiates a minor act and crimes based on the public danger of what he has done, however, he does not provide specific criteria, focusing on which the courts could most accurately apply the proposed institution." In the main part of the work, there is a phrase that "The existing uncertainty in law enforcement practice, as well as in the doctrine of criminal law, determines the relevance of the study of the issue of taking into account personality traits in the differentiation of minor acts and crimes." The scientist needs to substantiate in more detail the relevance of the research topic, identifying controversial issues that will be discussed in the article, as well as list the names of scientists who were engaged in their research. The author does not directly say what the scientific novelty of the study is. The scientist raises the problem of the lack of uniform judicial practice on recognizing an act as insignificant – unfortunately, despite the presence of well-defined instructions from the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, according to which "... personality traits and post-criminal behavior of the perpetrator are not circumstances characterizing the insignificance of the act," lower courts often ignore them. An alternative position to the position of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is occupied by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. There is no agreement between Russian scientists either. The author's justification of the position, according to which the properties and qualities of a person should not be taken into account when differentiating minor acts and crimes, shows the scientific novelty of the study. The scientific style of the article is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is not entirely logical, since the introductory part of the article cannot be clearly separated from the main one. This violates the logic of the presentation of materials. The main part of the work is devoted to the study of controversial issues about the insignificance of an act in criminal law and the social danger of a person and giving examples from judicial practice. The author explores the legal nature of "... the insignificance of an act through the prism of interpretation of legislative structures that consolidate the proposed institution." The final part of the article contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the work fully corresponds to its title, but is not without some drawbacks. As already noted, the introductory part of the work needs some adjustment. The author writes: "The insignificance of the act acts as a legal category ...". However, the legal category implies that there is no longer any dispute about this concept – it has been sufficiently verified by time and established in legal science. This cannot be said about the concept of "insignificance of an act" yet. The scientist's quote "... if there is a corpus delicti, a person can be brought to criminal responsibility, but at the same time it is necessary to decide on the expediency of such involvement", apparently, is taken out of the context of the work, since it is not completely correct. The presence of signs of a crime in a person's act is the basis for bringing him to criminal responsibility without any reference to the "expediency" of this. The author's phrase is not entirely correct that "... personality is an external category in relation to the act, and within the framework of the institute of insignificance, the law enforcement officer, within the meaning of the criminal law, should concentrate precisely on the internal qualities of the act." Of course, the characteristics of a person cannot but affect the nature of the act (another thing is that the legislator does not take these characteristics into account when establishing criminal liability, so as not to violate the principle of equality of all before the law. However, it takes into account the characteristics of the individual when imposing criminal punishment). In addition, the law enforcement officer focuses not so much on the "internal qualities of the act" (i.e., the subjective side of the crime, which is very difficult to establish in some cases), as on its external characteristics (i.e., the objective side of the crime). In any case, the author needs to use certain formulations carefully, since neglecting accuracy entails obscuring the meaning of statements. The bibliography of the study is presented by 8 sources (monographs, scientific articles, dissertation research). From a formal point of view, this is enough. From a factual point of view, the author is additionally recommended to refer to the scientific works (including those for 2019-2022) of Ch. M. Bagirov, V. N. Vinokurov, A.M. Gerasimov, A. Y. Gordeev, T. A. Lozovskaya, A.M. Lyutynsky, V. I. Tyunin, N. M. Yakimenko, etc. This will increase the degree of discussion of the provisions of the article, complement the author's argumentation. There is an appeal to the opponents (V. V. Stepanov, V. N. Vinokurov, etc.). The scientific discussion is conducted by the author correctly, the provisions of the work are reasoned and illustrated with examples. The conclusions based on the results of the conducted research are available and deserve the attention of the readership. It is necessary to agree with the author that "... the approach is justified, according to which personality traits should not be taken into account when differentiating minor acts and crimes." The author's proposal to change the current version of Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is interesting ("Circumstances related to the identity of the person who committed the act and not directly related to the deed are not circumstances characterizing the insignificance of the act"). The article needs additional proofreading by the author. It contains typos, spelling and stylistic errors. The interest of the readership in the presented article can be shown, first of all, by specialists in the field of criminal law and criminal procedure, provided that it is finalized: correcting the title and introductory part of the work, disclosing its methodology, clarifying certain provisions of the article, eliminating shortcomings in its design.

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. The subject of the research of the reviewed article is such a socio-legal category as "insignificance of an act", which encourages the legislator to more accurately assess the relevance of the application of criminal law measures. The author studies the problem of how, if there are signs of a crime in an act, a person can be brought to criminal responsibility, but at the same time it is necessary to decide on the expediency of such involvement. Research methodology. The methodological basis of the article is a systematic and structural approach to the study of the question of the insignificance of an act when deciding whether to bring a person to criminal liability. The main research method is analysis. During the writing of the article, other research methods were used, both general scientific and private. The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical methods of scientific cognition: abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, historical, theoretical-prognostic, formal-legal, systemic-structural legal modeling, as well as the application of typology, classification, systematization and generalization. The use of modern methods made it possible to study the established approaches, views on the subject of the article, to develop the author's position and to argue it. The work used a combination of theoretical and empirical information. Relevance. The issue discussed in the article is very relevant for domestic jurisprudence. As the author himself notes, in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, "the institute of insignificance is fixed in Part 2 of Article 14," where, fixing "a legal norm, the legislator differentiates insignificant acts and crimes on the basis of the public danger of what he has done, but does not provide specific criteria, focusing on which the courts could most accurately apply the proposed institution." The author of the article rightly notes that despite the fact that this issue is being worked out in jurisprudence, in particular, "the works of Ch. M. Bagirov, A. Y. Gordeev, V. I. Tyunin and other scientists are devoted to the problem of determining criteria and signs of insignificance of an act, however, the problem of taking into account personality traits when distinguishing insignificant acts and crimes remains open." Scientific novelty. The topic of the article is not completely new to Russian legal science, but at the same time, the aspect chosen by the author has elements of scientific novelty, which indicates the author's contribution to domestic jurisprudence. The conclusions drawn by the author deserve attention: personality traits should not be taken into account when differentiating minor acts and crimes; the current version of Article 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be changed and Part 3 should be introduced with the following content: "Circumstances related to the personality of the person who committed the act and not directly related to the deed are not circumstances characterizing the insignificance of the act"; the change in criminal legislation within the framework of the insignificance of the act will have a positive impact on law enforcement practice, will contribute to its uniformity. Style, structure, content. In general, the article is written in a scientific style, using special legal terminology. The article is structured. The content reveals the topic stated by the author. As a comment, I would like to note that the author should avoid stating "in my opinion", use "it seems", "it should be noted", etc. Bibliography. During the preparation of the article, the author studied a sufficient number of bibliographic sources, including publications of recent years. Bibliographic sources are designed in accordance with the requirements. Appeal to opponents. The author very correctly addresses the opinions of other scientists in his article, cites them as an argument for his own position. All borrowings of other people's opinions are in the form of citations with links to the source of the publication. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article "The insignificance of an act in criminal law and the social danger of a person" meets the established requirements, is relevant, has elements of scientific novelty and can be recommended for publication in the scientific journal "Legal Research". The article "The insignificance of an act in criminal law and the social danger of a person" may be of scientific interest to the readership.