The problem of criminal statistical casuistry of the category of "extremist crimes" based on examples of qualitative and quantitative analysis of their indicators.

Komarov Anton Anatolevich ORCID: 0000-0002-1330-4236 PhD in Law Associate Professor at the Novosibirsk state university of economics and management (NSUEM), Department of Criminal Law and National Security 630099, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Kamenskaya str., 52/1, office 503 reise83@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction.

In modern criminological science, the relevance of the topic we have formulated is due to the incomplete correlation of available statistical information to the understanding of the phenomenon of criminal extremism. Because of this, even the initial function of any criminological research - descriptive – cannot be fully implemented. Most criminologists are still forced to make reservations about the content of the concept of "extremism" at the beginning of the study. Ultimately, this affects not only theoretical ideas about the boundaries of this phenomenon, but also quite applied tasks – methods and techniques for generating statistics, so necessary in fixing the state of extremism in Russian society at a specific time interval. To characterize the parameters of such an influence is our main task.

All existing work on the issue can be divided into two groups: purely criminological and complex. In the first one, you can find much more information on the application of criminal statistics. The most famous works in this field include the works of I. S. Ilyin (PhD, 2023), P. A. Kabanov (PhD, 2008), A. T. Sioridze (PhD, 2007). The latter, as a rule, are combined with criminal law aspects and only indicate the content of the problem: A.V. Petryanin (PhD, 2015), S. N. Fridinsky (PhD, 2011), A.V. Pavlinov (PhD, 2008), A.V. Rostokinsky (PhD, 2008), S. V. Borisov (PhD, 2012), B. A. Mylnikov (PhD, 2005), R. M. Uzdenov (PhD, 2008), R. O. Kochergin (PhD, 2008).

Work in the field of criminal law is less interesting for our purposes. But they allow us to identify the criminal law features used in criminal statistics. Therefore, it is worth noting the merits of Y. S. Magnutov (cand., 2022), Z. M. Beshukova (cand., 2011), D. I. Lenshin (cand., 2011), V. V. Revina (cand., 2010), D. N. Sarkisov (cand., 2010), E. P. Sergun (cand., 2009), A.G. Khlebushkina (PhD, 2007).

Thus, based on the degree of research of the stated topic, we come to the conclusion that its understanding in criminological science is insufficient.

 From a methodological point of view, our research is based on the universal method of dialectical materialism, which allows us to fairly accurately correlate basic and superstructure social relations in such a way as to add a statistical array of extremist crimes to political crime.

As part of the use of other general scientific methods, through comparative analysis and synthesis of concepts, we were able to identify the essential signs of criminal extremism, comparable with the available criminal statistics.

We would not have been able to draw particular conclusions without the use of statistical and mathematical methods: summaries of official statistics, grouping their quantitative values according to the characteristics we are interested in; calculating average values, specific gravity and other crime indicators.

Structurally, our work is based on three theses, to which three separate paragraphs are devoted. The fourth one summarizes the results.

1. The influence of scientific terminology on the reducibility of dynamic series.

Regarding the definition of the main and additional indicators of the state of modern Russian extremism, it is necessary to make a reservation about some of its terminological uncertainty in the scientific literature. Some authors of dissertations come to the conclusion that the term in question is an interdisciplinary category ^{[1, p. 22]}, which simultaneously belongs to the field of political science, pedagogy, sociology, and jurisprudence. From the point of view of criminology, all these areas of knowledge are important in terms of understanding the phenomenon of extremism and the definitions given there require attention when analyzing the signs concentrated in them. Only in the field of pedagogy, S. V. Veshkin identifies nine independent (overlapping, but not coincident) concepts in his dissertation work. The general context of pedagogical research is based on the achievements of psychological science, which records individual personal deformations of the bearers of extremist ideology: intolerance, nonconformism, hypertrophied identity with certain value orientations.

Sociological science does not lag behind in this regard, and often surpasses in the number of studies on a given topic. According to I. V. Grebenshchikov, the "extremist discourse" within the framework of Russian political sociology was identified back in 1974 ^{[2, p. 23]}. Moreover, over time, work on the study of the instrumental nature of extremism as a way of influencing social structures ^[3] has shifted towards the study of the value orientations of social agents. To date, sociological research is divided into two large categories: the genesis of extremism, based on the state of public relations in modern Russian society; and aspects of social transformation provoked by it.

In the first case, the specific focus of such research makes it possible to isolate political, religious and even informational extremism into separate phenomena ^{[4, pp. 7-9]}.

In the second case, extremism is considered as a social process. The social process is a tool for adapting individuals to changing external circumstances. E. O. Kubyakin in his doctoral dissertation spreads ideas not only about the quality of the functional effect of extremism on social structures, but also defines it as forms of new communicative practices among young people ^{[5, p. 17]}. And then, in a non-legal context, not only real microsocial groups united by extremist ideology are subject to examination, but also "virtual" (network) communities that disseminate information of an extremist nature.

As a result, the value of the sociological approach to understanding the problem of extremism in modern Russian society and its qualitative features lies in the fact that it pays close attention to the content of the value orientations of social agents, and not only the methods of their interaction (struggle – approx. ours) with social institutions. By studying their values, we begin to understand the term "extremist ideology" more adequately. Exploring the methods of struggle – the very term "extremism". And as for social structures, we better understand the legal term "extremist community". Often, sociological science suggests quite correct and meaningful recipes for the essential content of individual legal terms.

Fig.1. Conceptual scheme.

Criminological science proceeds in its research from these sociological premises. But, being a part of jurisprudence, it is limited by the framework (concepts) of the law, which sociologists consider to be an incorrect methodological premise when studying extremism. In sociology, it is considered that the terms and definitions proposed by the legislator do not reveal its essence and social nature. But I would like to note that it is the criminal law feature of this socially negative phenomenon that allows us to determine the specific forms of its social control. From a criminological point of view, the very commitment to the value ideals of extremism, exposed only in the form of inaction, does not form a criminal phenomenon. Based on these assumptions, we will have to admit that extremism is indeed a complex phenomenon that has not only a criminal expression. And therefore, the subject of our research is incomparably narrower than the discourse of extremism in Russian society as a whole. Considering it as a criminal phenomenon, we cannot do without legal conventions in its definition, which we will try to outline more clearly. For example, of this kind, when the terms "political motive of a crime" and "extremist motive" in criminal law begin to be identified ^{[6, p. 17]}. Therefore, the further synthesis of legal and sociological concepts results in a non-trivial, but necessary task, which has not yet been fully solved.

Perhaps, on this basis, the legislator resorted to the simplest way of criminally statistical definition of this phenomenon more than twenty years ago. This method allows you to describe its content through a list of articles of the criminal law. There seems to be such an indication in the Federal Law "On Countering extremist activities". However, upon closer examination, it turns out that only some of them terminologically coincide with the names or contents of the dispositions of specific articles of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it is not possible to clearly define a group of extremist crimes on the basis of this law alone.

In the very same Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the legislator, in order to indicate the extremist nature of acts, directly notes the motivational criterion in a note to Article 2821 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. But since it simultaneously serves as an aggravating circumstance, the possibility of its application to individual articles of the Special Part is quite extensive. Commenting on the current state of affairs, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in Resolution No. 11 "On Judicial practice in criminal cases of extremist crimes," points to specific 18 compositions in 10 articles of the current Code.

However, from the point of view of modern criminal statistics, this will not be enough. We note the joint Instruction of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia No. 401/11, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia No. 2 dated 06/19/2023 "On the introduction of lists of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation used in the formation of statistical reporting", which establishes the rules for attributing committed acts to the required line of statistical accounting. Here they are divided into 3 categories: crimes classified as extremist without any additional grounds - 16 articles; crimes attributed at the time of their commission, depending on the entry into force or loss thereof by criminal law – 15 compositions (in 13 articles); and crimes attributed with additional conditions to our category – 28 articles (this means the motivational criterion as a qualifying feature or the effect of expanded reproduction of crime).

It turns out that with each new step of our judgments about the possibility of a criminal statistical definition, the number of acts falling under the desired motivational criterion is increasing.

The Convention of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on Countering Extremism (2017), which we have ratified, also complicates the "statistical picture". After all, it defines the legal boundaries of this phenomenon not only along the lines of a criminal law ban, but also takes into account administrative offenses as its component. After the mitigation of criminal liability in 2018 by establishing administrative prejudice, we have felt a significant reduction in the volume of extremist crimes in criminal statistics. Today, it becomes possible to give a complete judgment on the real criminologically significant indicators of extremism in Russia only by adding at least five more articles of the Administrative Code. They characterize the behavior of individuals as necessary and pre-criminal.

But does this also allow us to fully define the boundaries of our criminal phenomenon?

A number of authors in the criminal law literature emphasize the homogeneity of the law-enforcement object of extremist crimes, understanding by it the foundations of the constitutional system ^{[6, 7, 8]}. Indeed, the principles of government enshrined in the first sixteen articles of the Constitution can serve as objective boundaries of a law-enforcement facility. The specific "objectification" of extremist compositions suggests that we will be able to identify a whole set of social relations with which these crimes are connected by causal relationships. In the literature of the twentieth century, there was usually an indication of the political sphere – the area of struggle for state power. However, there is a point of view in legal science that does not reduce the object of extremist attacks solely to it. This position is based on an analysis of the provisions of the norms on criminal liability for manifestations of extremism in the structure of the Special Part. And here it is worth agreeing that there was no separate location for extremist crimes. But is it worth considering the immediate objects of individual criminal attacks as an indicator that extremism is a completely heterogeneous phenomenon? Not at all.

Another position focuses on its sociological division into types (forms): political, national, religious, environmental, economic, and even in some cases– personal and domestic. Here, in addition to blurring the already existing general definition and the vagueness of the newly proposed particulars, there is a real danger that the concept of extremism will begin to merge with any kind of intolerance towards the opposite point of view. And as a result, we will begin to apply criminal liability for dissent, rather than real actions. We believe that modern religion and national consciousness are superstructural elements of the culture of bourgeois society. As E. Durkheim would put it, they become political instruments of reconciliation and accord, which in the context of globalization cease to work locally, degenerating into new perverted forms of public consciousness – economic, environmental extremism. And he, in any of his incarnations, has an ideological basis. The same religion, racial and national identity is just an ideology based on a material attribute, which is given distorted, hypertrophied meanings of community self–identification in an extremist way. All these are consequences of the political nature of the organization of public relations, carried out according to the principle: divide and rule. Creating the appearance of a competitive struggle in the political arena in the guise of a confrontation between minorities, who are little able in reality to influence the economic and political situation in the country. The essence of such views in theoretical terms, it seems to us, was most fully illuminated by the American criminologist Steven Schafer (S. Schafer, 1974) ^[9].

All extremist crimes take place in the political sphere in one way or another, since their ultimate goal is to transform public relations sanctioned by the State authorities. In our opinion, all this indicates that a group of extremist crimes is an integral part of political crime.

Meanwhile, not all criminologists share the idea we have indicated, highlighting only political extremism in the structure of political crime. In the dissertation work of P. A. Kabanov, as essential signs of political crime itself, its subject composition (political functionaries) and a criminal law feature (based on the prohibition of not only national but also international criminal law) are highlighted ^{[10, p. 20]}. At the same time, it would be worth noting that in the definition of political crime by the specified author there are no indications of a specific motive, according to which this type of crime is usually distinguished. In our case, it is worth considering that the motive itself, from the point of view of the development of the mechanism of individual criminal behavior over time and the mental reflection of a political criminal on what is happening, is unthinkable without goal-setting. Therefore, in P. A. Kabanov's definition of political extremism, the motive is quite reasonably replaced by specific political goals pursued by extremists (political functionaries). But here, a violent method of committing crimes is also added to the definition. It turns out that extremism intersects with two types of crime at once: political and violent. Perhaps the author tends to the legal definition of extremism, where terrorism appears to be an extreme form of extremism. And the violent way of committing extremist crimes significantly brings extremism closer to terrorist activity in terms of external expression. But later, the legislator tried to separate it from the extremist one by adopting and enacting the Federal Law "On Countering Terrorism." However, many lawyers and criminologists still believe that this phenomenon is of the same order, based on the interpretation of the conceptual apparatus of the original version of the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist activity." As a result of these perturbations, we have received a new line of statistical accounting in criminal statistics ("crimes of a terrorist nature"). And we have to take it into account when analyzing the indicators of extremist crimes. By recognizing terrorism as one of the most dangerous forms of extremism, we will automatically raise the question of the correlation of their accounted volumes in criminal statistics. This is of criminological interest, if only because the number of registered facts of terrorist crimes exceeds the registered criminal extremism at any time interval (for example, in 2023 – 2,382 events against 1,340 for the same period).

The same legislative changes have led to the fact that Article 207 of the Criminal Code "Knowingly false report of an act of terrorism" disappears from the list of extremist and terrorist acts in criminal statistics. As a result, the volume of registered terrorism decreased by a multiple in just 2006 from 5,438 to 1,787 acts. It should be noted that even today the volume of this crime is large – about 22,649 facts as of 2022. Thus, only this "manifestation of hooliganism" in its volumes exceeds the combined indicators of extremism and terrorism combined. The exclusion of such a composition from criminal statistics is quite natural, since it is characterized by hooligan personal motives rather than political ones.

Now it becomes obvious that theoretical attempts to rethink the content of this concept with its subsequent consolidation in law are quite strongly reflected in criminal statistics, without the analysis of which a criminological study of its actual state is impossible. Such mobility of the conceptual structure requires completely different, i.e. more complex and sophisticated grouping techniques to understand the main and additional indicators of political crime.

Unfortunately, representatives of other sciences (not criminologists), citing the recorded indicators as arguments for their scientific hypothesis, simply miss many aspects that we wrote about above. In their view, the terminological inconsistency of the norms of the law does not correlate in any way with the movement of dynamic data series. Although this dependence is obvious. Next, we will try to illustrate this with specific examples.

2. The limited volume of recorded crimes from the point of view of the "law of large numbers".

 One of the characteristic features of modern criminal statistics of extremist crimes is the limited volume of recorded acts. In average annual terms, about 804 extremist crimes have been registered over the past 20 years. And even less is committed during the same reporting period. The situation is no better with regard to the registration of crimes of a terrorist nature, which in their volume always and at any historical period exceed the number of less serious acts of an extremist orientation.  From the point of view of the "law of large numbers", several hundred facts are not enough for statistical analysis. Then any random deviation (fluctuation) in their registration will lead to severe distortions. It is quite appropriate to suggest here that there is no sign of mass character at the heart of this criminal phenomenon. And it naturally leads to the denial of the possibility of studying it within the framework of criminology. This objection is one of the key arguments for criminologists who want to combine extremism and terrorism in order to increase the volume of the subject under study to statistically significant values. However, the indicators of terrorism in criminal statistics today are also low. We can see this in the graph shown in Figure 1. "Volume movement".

Fig.2. Volume movement.

In fairness, it is necessary to turn to the administrative component of extremism, since prejudice today makes a significant contribution to reducing the recorded volume of crimes. According to Article 20.3.1 of the Administrative Code, primarily corresponding to Article 282 of the Criminal Code, a fourfold increase has been recorded over the past four years – from 400 cases to 1.6 thousand administrative offenses. Among other compositions, it is necessary to single out Articles 20.29, 20.3 of the Administrative Code, where the number of registered administrative offenses is in the thousands. The remaining offenses are significantly inferior in their specific weight to the listed compositions, with the caveat that in the last two years new legislation has appeared, according to which law enforcement practice is now actively being formed.

Table 1. Trends in the volume of extremist admins. offenses.

An analysis of the average values of the number of cases of administrative offenses in table No. 1 shows that the state of extremism strongly depends on legislative initiatives. By grouping on a quantitative basis, it was possible to clearly identify three independent periods. In the first of them (2016-2018), the average value of administrative offenses fluctuated around the 4 thousand mark.

Immediately after the mitigation of criminal repression on extremist elements of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 2018, the redistribution of the statistical population in favor of administrative offenses begins. As a result, over the next three years, the average annual volume of cases of administrative offenses is 6.1 thousand, showing an increase of one third compared to the previous period. At the same time, the number of crimes in 2019 alone is decreasing by 2.2 times. The negative growth rates of criminal acts of extremist orientation are primarily associated with the "cumulative effect" of prejudice, which was absent from most extremists immediately after the changes made to the Administrative Code and the Criminal Code. The very possibility of their further involvement under Articles 2801 and 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is linked to the increase in the number of persons subjected to administrative responsibility in subsequent years, which naturally affected the state of criminal statistics. However, already in 2020, a "recovery growth" of extremist crimes began to be observed.

And the last third stage is connected with the adoption of norms on administrative responsibility for discrediting the use of the armed forces in March 2022. As a result, the number of registered "facts of prejudicial extremism" has tripled in relation to the base year 2016.

A correlation analysis of the initial data for the same period shows the presence of a weak positive relationship between crimes and administrative offenses (coefficient +0.23 according to Pearson). Obviously, there is no linear relationship between these variables. At the same time, the obtained positive coefficient allows us to state the absence of an inverse linear relationship, which would unequivocally confirm our hypothesis. But at the same time, the simplest graphical analysis of the variables depicted for ease of perception in Figure No. 3 "Administrative and criminal extremism" indicates the presence of a certain inversely proportional relationship between the two recorded indicators. For the period up to 2019, a strict ratio of crimes to administrative offenses was observed, which was formed as 1:3. But after that it changes significantly. There is a large volatility in this proportion (7-9 according to the limit values of individual years). And the average value for the last four years is 1:8. In any case, such a difference is already statistically significant and may indicate a real redistribution of the statistical population in favor of administrative offenses in terms of their official accounting.

Fig. 3. Administrative and criminal extremism.

In statistical terms, our final conclusion about the recorded volumes of acts is that administrative offenses are an integral line of static accounting when analyzing the status of a number of extremist crimes that provide for administrative prejudice in the dispositions of their articles. And the persons brought to administrative responsibility constitute a potential reserve of political crime for the future, if private prevention does not have a proper impact on their behavior.

3. Registration discipline and the issue of latency of extremist crimes.

Another problem with the formation of consolidated statistical reports is that almost every year there are 3 times more extremist acts registered than actually committed during the same reporting period. For example, here is the following information: in 2022, 1,566 facts were registered, but only 735 acts were committed; in 2021, respectively: 1,057 and 355 crimes; in 2020 – 833 and 299 events. If in relation to all crime, the registration discipline develops in such a way that in the new reporting period about 17.64% of crimes of previous years are registered, then in relation to crimes of an extremist orientation, the proportion of similar acts [crimes committed not in the current reporting period, but in previous ones] is 63.54%. Some exceptions to this rule are high-profile acts of sabotage and novelties of the criminal law "on discrediting", 96% of which were registered in the current reporting period.

As a rule, information about acts registered regardless of the time of their commission is leaked into press releases and official communications. In most dissertations and scientific articles, they use these data to prove their hypotheses. It is easier to isolate them from the array of criminal statistics that are publicly available. Thus, a misconception is formed about the state of crime among the public. In fact, the issue of statistically significant volumes of extremist crimes for the purposes of mathematical analysis is being raised with new urgency. We believe that this situation may partly be due to the complexity of the qualification of certain extremist acts.

One of the main reasons for this state of affairs with the registration and accounting of extremist crimes is their specific structure, when public statements and appeals (and now discrediting) account for the largest share (meaning Articles 280, 2801, 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). These compositions are formulated as formal in their design. Therefore, the moment of their termination is closely tied to the very event of the dissemination of messages (information), and not to the moment of their discovery by law enforcement officers. Taking into account the expansion of modern ways of spreading extremist views and materials via the Internet, it can be concluded that "messages from the past" are often subjected to documentary analysis. And the very practice of detecting such materials and messages by operational search units suffers from seasonality, since constant monitoring is not well established.

There is a certain difficulty at the initial stages of the investigation, which significantly delays the timing of the decision to initiate a criminal case and the possibility of classifying it as extremist in criminal statistics. Often, such a procedural decision is due to the need for a linguistic examination of the statement or written materials. Despite the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation sets extremely short deadlines (15 days) for conducting an examination, the expert, in case of difficulty, can extend them for another same period. In practice, it turns out that the investigator does not always have time, even within the deadlines set by the CPC, to initiate a criminal case and give a preliminary qualification to the act ^[11]. And extremist crime is registered in criminal statistics with some delay.

Due to this, the borderline latency of extremist crimes develops and develops. Thus, according to the remark of the head of the Department for Supervision of the Execution of Laws on Federal Security, Interethnic Relations, Countering Extremism and Terrorism of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, Yu. P. Khokhlov, only 8 subjects of the Russian Federation had a high level of completeness of registration of this phenomenon ^[12]. It turns out that the remaining 79 regions do not even reach the figure of 80% of the number of registered crimes from the actually identified acts.

The problem in this case will also be the difficulty of distinguishing between group hooliganism (Part 2 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code), petty hooliganism (Article 20.1 of the Administrative Code) and specifically motivated (paragraph "b", part 1 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code) ^{[13, p. 34]}. As some authors note, in many cases hooliganism is difficult to distinguish from other extremist crimes if we look only at the nature of the actions committed ^{[14, p.21]}. And the leading motive to be established in a criminal case is not always possible to determine accurately enough, since it is difficult to separate the encroachment on public order as a whole and its individual (constitutional and ideological) sides. Thus, some extremist crimes inevitably fall into the category of "hooliganism". Conversely, there is a danger that certain hooligan manifestations will be unreasonably recognized as extremist.

Another additional judgment that qualitatively clarifies the statistical picture of extremism is the question of the natural latency of this type of crime. Here we should pay attention to a number of dissertations of recent years, since it is in them that one can find selective research on the issue of interest to us. According to B. A. Mylnikov, the ratio of detected and registered extremist crimes in relation to their unknown, hidden from criminal statistics, is 1:100. But such values of the degree of latency should be treated with caution. This is indicated by the author himself in the dissertation, doubting the success of the expert survey ^[15]. In other works, the empirical nature of statements about the degree we are looking for is completely absent. Instead, its high assessment is stated without specific quantitative expressions of this value ^{[16, 6, 17]}.

R. O. Kochergin also doubts the possibility of generalizing the opinions of 185 law enforcement officers on this issue, comparing them with respondents of youth age, who assess registration discipline in the amount of 10-30% of the number of committed acts ^[18]. Here it is worth paying close attention to both the dispersion of the answers given by the respondents and the quality of the sample itself. On the one hand, such a set of opinions makes it possible to assign both an average and a high degree of latency to extremist crimes at the same time. Which is not a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, most of the 195 law students interviewed (including departmental ones – the Ministry of Internal Affairs) clearly do not belong to the environment of extremist offenders who are able to provide clarifying information about naturally latent acts that took place.

The doctoral work of A.V. Petryanin deserves special attention in this regard, who points (like many other authors before him) to the high degree of latency of extremist crimes, having studied 325 "refusal materials" in the initiation of criminal proceedings ^{[19, pp. 37-38]}. However, even here it is necessary to make a methodological reservation, since the author, when analyzing these documents, proceeds primarily from the need to analyze law enforcement practice. And he does not make a statistical comparison with the criminal cases that have already been actually initiated. In addition, these materials were collected in various regions. Being a plus in terms of studying the difference in law enforcement practice, it simultaneously appears to be a minus in terms of uniformity of the statistical sample.

Arguing in his last (already doctoral) work, the idea of a high degree of latency of extremist crimes, S.N. Fridinsky also does not directly quantify the proposed indicator ^{[20, p.31]}. Meanwhile, the author's desire to point out the predominant contribution of the natural component is clearly visible. The reasons for this state of affairs in criminal statistics are described in some detail. Taken together, attempts to investigate only the qualitative side of the mechanism of latency formation and unsuccessful attempts to organize sample studies indicate that, from a methodological point of view, criminology is still searching for the best questionnaire methods. At the same time, there is no indication of attempts to implement expert matrices in terms of evaluating the survey results, which somewhat impoverishes the information received. The limited possibility of using victimological survey techniques also affects the result, since in many cases, extremist crimes are so–called "victimless crimes".

            Therefore, despite numerous statements about the high degree of latency of extremist crimes, this thesis cannot be considered properly proven in criminological science.

As an antithesis, one can cite I. S. Ilyin's criminological research in the field of protest-demonstrative crime, which is largely interspersed with the more general phenomenon of criminal extremism. According to this author's assessment, based precisely on the expert matrix, the crime he considers has a relatively low level of latency ^{[21, p.120]}.

Generalization of the above hypotheses allows us to assume its average degree (within the limits of 1:5) for crimes of extremist orientation. This hypothesis is based on the fact that the degree of public danger of extremist crimes is lower than terrorist ones. At least from the point of view of the law. Due to this circumstance, the general rule applies to this group of crimes when the resonance of the crime affects its registration. In a sense, our statement is also supported by a statistical sweep of the frequency of occurrence of administrative offenses, which are many times more crimes.

4. Final provisions.

Summing up the results of our research, I would like to draw several independent conclusions regarding the stated problem:

a). Analyzing the content of definitions in various fields of science, we come to the conclusion that the synthesis of legal and sociological concepts is still a non-trivial task. From a criminological point of view, this was reflected in the use of the criminal statistical approach as the only possible way to explain the phenomenon of extremism in the law. At the same time, we have to admit that criminal extremism is part of a scientific discourse with broader fields and boundaries. This allows us to perceive it as a social process, rather than an independent phenomenon.

b). In modern criminal statistics, the motivational criterion serves as the main criteria for allocating a separate line of statistical accounting for extremist crimes. To a lesser extent, the specific "objectification" of such crimes can serve as a statistical grouping. A special reservation should be made about the prejudicial nature of most extremist crimes, which makes it possible to consider the totality of administrative offenses as a coherent statistical community. And the persons brought to administrative responsibility constitute a potential reserve of political crime for the future, if private prevention does not have the proper impact on them.

Examining the motivational criterion more fully in theoretical terms, we tend to attribute extremist crimes to political crime. Despite the fact that science distinguishes other types of extremism.

c). The limited volume of recorded acts is the main methodological disadvantage in the study of criminal extremism. Usually, 3 times more acts are recorded than are actually committed in the same reporting period.

By grouping extremist acts according to the quantitative basis of their registered volumes, it was possible to identify 3 independent periods in the development of this phenomenon, which were formed under the influence of changes in administrative and criminal legislation.

d). The key problems in the formation of modern criminal statistics of extremist crimes are: the complexity of the qualification of such acts; difficulties encountered by investigators at the initial stages of the investigation; violations of registration discipline from the point of view of prosecutorial supervision.

This state of affairs indicates a high component of borderline latency. The degree of latency has not been reliably established in any of the modern criminological studies. Most works indicate, often without empirical justification, its high degree. We tend to believe that extremist crimes have an average degree of latency within its limits.