Ответственность за призывы к совершению преступления в уголовном праве Российской Федерации

Анализируются подходы законодателя к установлению уголовной ответственности за призывы к совершению определенных преступлений. Выделены их общие и частные признаки, показано значение для квалификации содеянного. Проводится сравнение вопросов ответственности за призывы как за самостоятельные преступления и как за подстрекательство при соучастии в неоконченном преступлении. Сформулированы рекомендации в части совершенствования соответствующих положений уголовного законодательства. Авторы заявляют об отсутствии конфликта интересов.

The legislator's approaches to establishing criminal liability for calls to commit crimes in the Russian Federation are examined in this article using the formal-legal and historical-legal methods of research. In total, the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains nine articles, with the introduction of which the legislator criminalized calls: Art. 110² (organization of activities aimed at inducing suicide), Art. 205² (public calls for terrorist activities, public justification of terrorism or propaganda of terrorism), Part 3 of Art. 212 (calls for mass riots or participation in them, as well as calls for violence against citizens), Art. 280 (public calls for extremist activities), Art. 280¹ (public calls for actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation), Art. 280³ ( public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in order to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintain international peace and security, exercise the powers of state bodies of the Russian Federation, provide assistance to volunteer formations, organizations or individuals in fulfilling the tasks assigned to the Armed Forces Forces of the Russian Federation or troops of the National Guard of the Russian Federation), Art. 280⁴ (public calls for activities directed against the security of the state), Art. 2842 (calls for the introduction of restrictive measures against the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian Federation or Russian legal entities), and Art. 354 (public calls for a war of aggression) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. These norms are characterized by both general and certain features, and some of them turn out to be quite contradictory and require the attention of the legislator in the subsequent improvement of criminal legislation. So, for example, the qualification of acts prohibited by Part 1 of Art. 280i, Part 1 of Art. 280³ and Art. 2842 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is made dependent on administrative prejudice, which seems unacceptable in the context of the importance of objects of criminal legal protection - all these crimes are classified as acts that encroach on the foundations of the constitutional order and the security of the state (Chapter 29 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In addition, in certain norms (Part 1 of Art. 1101 and Part 1 of Art. 1102 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) there is an inconsistency in the degree of severity of liability for inducement to commit a crime and calls to commit crimes, although inducement, it seems, in all cases should be seen as a more serious act. But the most significant issue that attracts attention when addressing the topic of calls to commit a crime is the entry of certain articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on “criminal calls” into competition with the norms of the General Part on complicity in a crime (in particular, incitement) and an unfinished crime. It seems advisable to consider the norms of the General Part as priority and, in order to ensure uniformity of law enforcement practice, to refuse to establish liability for certain types of calls, describing their general features within the framework of the norms on complicity and imposition of punishment. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.