Objective and subjective signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

Type of work:

Law basics

• File format:

  File size:

Criminal liability for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

You can find out the cost of helping to write a student paper.

Help in writing a paper that will definitely be accepted!

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 The concept of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

1 History of the development of legislation on liability for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

1.2 Modern legal regulation of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

CHAPTER 2 Legal characteristics of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

2.1 Objective signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

2.2 Subjective signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

CHAPTER 3 Problems of qualification and criminal liability for the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

1 Qualifying signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

2 Particularly qualifying signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

The most common crimes against health include the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. An analysis of the committed crimes of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm shows that this type of criminal attacks against a person has a steady trend. The practice of investigating these crimes indicates that the motives and goals of the acts committed are diverse: jealousy, revenge, hostile personal relationships, hooligan motives. More than half of these crimes are committed under aggravating circumstances: with special cruelty, mockery, torture of the victim, in a generally dangerous way, for hire, out of hooligan motives, based on national racial hatred or enmity, by a group of skinheads or an organized criminal group, previously convicted persons.

The fight against attacks on the person largely depends on the correct application of the criminal law.

Intentional crimes that cause serious harm to health are among the most difficult crimes against a person for legal analysis. Bodies investigating criminal cases of this category often encounter difficulties in their qualification. Enough mistakes are made in establishing causation between the act of the guilty person (action or inaction) and the consequences that have occurred, when establishing intent, the method of committing intentional crimes that cause serious harm to health.

The relevance of the topic is due to the above circumstances and the importance of the issue of all-round protection of health and protection of the individual from criminal encroachments. At the same time, it was also taken into account that the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, to date, is one of the most common crimes against a person.

Having studied the operational situation over the past three years on the example of the territory of the Zaeltsovsky district of Novosibirsk, we can conclude that the number of crimes related to the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm is on the rise. So in 2008 the number of registered crimes under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation amounted to 80, in 2009 - 89 crimes, and in 2010 94 crimes of this category were registered.

The object of the study is public relations related to the application of criminal law on liability for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.

The subject of the study is criminal liability for the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.

The purpose of the final qualifying work is to study the problems of qualifying crimes under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the development of proposals for the improvement of criminal legislation.

The implementation of the set goal predetermined the setting of the following most important tasks:

) study of the history of the development of legislation on liability for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm;

) study of the problems of modern legal regulation of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm;

) study of objective and subjective signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm;

) analysis of qualifying and especially qualifying signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm;

) identification of problems of qualification of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm;

) development of proposals for the improvement of criminal legislation.

The theoretical basis of the final qualification work was the works of Aniyants M.K., Ashitov Z.O., Borodin S.V., Nikiforov A.S., Piontkovsky A.A., Pobegailo E.F., Ponomarev P.G., Rarog A. .I., Revina V.P., Starkova O.V., Filippova A,P., Shargarodsky M.D. and other authors who are used in writing the final qualifying work.

The empirical basis of the work is the guiding explanations of the Plenums of the Supreme Court Russian Federation on cases of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, as well as materials of judicial practice of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of the city of Novosibirsk.

Research methods for the final qualification work: system approach, general scientific method of cognition, historical-legal, statistical, method of generalization and analysis, formal-logical, technical-legal methods.

The structure of the work includes an introduction, three chapters, and a conclusion. In the introduction, the relevance of the topic of the final qualifying work is substantiated, the object, subject, purpose, tasks of the work are indicated; study methods are defined, the empirical and theoretical bases are characterized, the structure of the final qualifying work is determined. The first chapter discusses the concept of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. The second chapter gives a legal description of the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. The third chapter deals with the problems of qualification and criminal liability for the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.

CHAPTER 1 The concept of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

1.1 The history of the development of legislation on liability for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

criminal liability intentional harm to health

Considering the history of the development of the Russian criminal legislation of the last century, the problems of liability for crimes against human health were resolved in different periods time is not the same. If we consider the Criminal Code of 1903, then crimes that cause harm to health were collected in chapter 23, which was called “On bodily injury and violence against a person.” It consisted of 14 articles. , which, depending on the severity of the consequences, were divided into serious, very serious and light.The Code of 1903 identified nine possible signs of "very serious bodily injury": loss of vision, hearing, language, hands, feet, reproductive parts of the body, permanent disfigurement of the face, life-threatening health disorder and mental illness.It is noteworthy that life-threatening bodily injury (Article 467), along with the main composition, also contained a qualified, burdened by the death of the victim.In this case, the punishability of the act increased - from eight years of hard labor to ten years taking into account the increased degree of public danger of this type yes violent assault. Also, the Code of 1903 specified the criteria for serious bodily injury, namely (in accordance with Article 468), health disorders that were not life-threatening, which were either permanent or, although temporary, but, citing an article of the Criminal Code, “violating administration of an organ of the body. Characteristically, Art. 468 also had simple and qualified compositions, the latter of which provided for the onset of the consequences of a very serious bodily injury or death of the victim. At the same time, the punishability of severe bodily injury compared to its more dangerous type was much milder and consisted in placing the perpetrator in a correctional house (as opposed to hard labor for committing a very serious bodily injury); for a qualified type of crime in question, the duration of the term could not be less than three years.

All other health disorders not listed in Art. Art. 467 and 468 of the Code, were declared light bodily injuries and punished under Art. 469 imprisonment. If the commission of this crime entailed the onset of one of the consequences of a very serious bodily injury or death, and also if a slight bodily injury was caused to a pregnant woman, the punishability of the act was determined according to the rules of the most serious bodily injury, providing for long periods of stay in hard labor. The punishability of careless crimes of the group under consideration was established separately in the legislation (Article 474) and provided for arrest or a fine in the amount of not more than 25 rubles, as an alternative to arrest in case of causing minor bodily injury through negligence. Aggravating circumstances were signs that took into account the specifics of the victims' personality (mother, legal father, other ascendant relative, clergyman, official, someone "from the ranks of the guard guarding the Sacred Person of the Reigning Emperor or a Member of the Imperial House." To mitigating circumstances Punishability of bodily harm, included: "strong emotional excitement", "violence against a person", "serious insult on the part of the victim". These signs, being in some cases a provocative moment of the unlawful behavior of the perpetrator, should have been taken into account when sentencing. In addition, the Code singled out special norms and established special liability, if bodily harm was inflicted, on a foreign ambassador, the head of a foreign state, an employee of a steamship or sea vessel, and a volost foreman.

Summing up what has been said about the Criminal Code of 1903, it can be noted that, among other offenses, it contained a detailed system of crimes against human health, which was distinguished by logic and consistency, corresponded high level development of forensic medicine and jurisprudence, but one can also say about the other side of this criminal law: it consisted of 687 articles, which gave it the character of some vagueness and uncertainty in the understanding of individual norms.

In the first Soviet criminal law - the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 - a special section 2 of chapter 5 was devoted to liability for crimes of this category, which provided for punishment for acts against life, health, freedom and dignity of the individual. The legal regulation of crimes against health under the Criminal Code of 1922 was distinguished by its most profound and comprehensive development, specificity and accessibility of understanding.

The Criminal Code of 1922 divided bodily harm into three types, grave, less grave and light. This made it possible to more accurately determine the degree of harm caused to the health of the victim, as well as more correctly establish the criminal liability of the perpetrators of the crime. Serious bodily injuries were bodily injuries that caused a life-threatening health disorder, mental illness, loss of vision, hearing, or any organ, or permanent disfigurement of the face. Less serious bodily injury was not life-threatening, but caused a health disorder or a long-term dysfunction of any organ.

The Criminal Code of 1922 did not disclose the definition of light bodily injury and did not indicate any signs of it. But having studied the concepts of serious bodily injury and less serious bodily injury, we can conclude that light bodily injuries are not life-threatening injuries that did not cause a long-term health disorder, but only a short-term health disorder. Striking, beatings or other violent acts that caused physical pain, the Criminal Code singled out as an independent crime.

The Criminal Code of 1922 provided for a qualified type of grievous bodily injury, the result of which was the death of the victim, or if it was caused by torture or torment, it was the result of systematic, albeit light, bodily injury. In this case, the term of imprisonment was increased, its lower threshold was at least 5 years. The Code did not single out a qualified type of less serious bodily injury.

From the point of view of the nature and degree of public danger, the Code of 1922 also distinguished less dangerous types of infliction of bodily harm: intentional grievous or less grievous bodily injury inflicted under the influence of strong emotional excitement; grievous bodily injury caused by exceeding the limits of necessary defense. On the subjective side, the Criminal Code of 1922 established responsibility not only for the intentional infliction of bodily harm, but also for negligence, regardless of the severity of the bodily injury. In addition to simple careless bodily injury, criminal liability was established for careless bodily injury, which had a qualifying sign, namely: if it was caused as a result of conscious non-compliance with the precautionary rules established by law or by a lawful order of the authorities. The sections of the code "other violence against a person" and "leaving in danger" established liability for infecting another person with a venereal disease, for unlawful imprisonment, for placing a known healthy person from mercenary or other personal types in a hospital for the mentally ill, for kidnapping, hiding or substitution of someone else's child for mercenary purposes, out of revenge or other personal views, for failure to provide assistance to the patient and for the refusal of medical personnel to provide medical care.

The crimes listed above included norms in which the perpetrators were brought to criminal responsibility for illegal deprivation of liberty in a way dangerous to life or health, or accompanied by torment for the victim. In addition, responsibility came for leaving without help a person who was in a life-threatening situation and deprived of the possibility of self-preservation due to infancy, decrepitude, illness, or due to another helpless condition.

Thus, the first Soviet Criminal Code with a section on crimes against human health served as a necessary guarantee of protecting the health of citizens from criminal encroachments. In addition, in 1922, the Ministry of Health of the RSFSR issued Rules for drawing up conclusions on the severity of damage, which contributed to a more complete understanding of the relevant norms of the Code and their clear application in practice.

The Criminal Code of 1926, first of all, significantly changed the place and system of bodily harm in criminal law. He, unlike the Criminal Code of 1922, included all crimes that encroached on life, health, honor and dignity, personal freedom, in one sixth chapter, without any division into sections.

According to the Criminal Code of 1926, bodily injuries were divided into two types according to severity. These included grievous bodily injury and light bodily injury. The Criminal Code of 1926 did not single out less serious bodily injuries.

This classification of bodily injuries artificially created conditions for mitigating liability for serious bodily injuries, which, for a number of reasons, could not be classified as grievous bodily injuries. These questions have caused discussions in the literature and disputes among practitioners. Undoubtedly, criticism of the binomial division of bodily injuries in the literature played a constructive role, which subsequently helped to create a more perfect system of bodily injuries in the criminal legislation of Russia in 1960.

Severe bodily injury, according to the criminal law of that time, was recognized as a bodily injury that was life-threatening or caused loss of vision, hearing, any other organ or loss of its functions by an organ, as well as permanent disfigurement of the face, mental illness or other health disorder, coupled with the loss of working capacity by more than one third. For the intentional commission of this crime, the perpetrator could be punished with imprisonment for up to 8 years.

Light bodily injury was of two types:

a) caused a health disorder;

b) did not cause a health disorder.

For bodily injury caused by negligence, the Criminal Code of 1926 established criminal liability only in the case when the infliction of bodily injury was the result of a deliberate failure to comply with the rules of precaution. This issue has also been the subject of controversy and controversy in judicial practice because many considered this position to be unfounded.

Criminal liability for infecting another person with a venereal disease has been expanded and specified. It was pointed out that responsibility for infecting another person with a venereal disease occurs if the person (infected) knew that he had a venereal disease. The Code of 1922 did not know this indication.

The Criminal Code of 1926, in essence, repeated some of the norms of the Code of 1922, somewhat detailing them.

This Criminal Code existed for 24 years until the adoption of the new Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, which became a significant event in the development of legislation in the Soviet period. A tendency to reduce the number of elements of crimes that cause harm to health was proposed, and the rejection of the casuistic presentation of the relevant criminal law norms was finally approved. In addition, to some extent, it was possible to eliminate the shortcomings and outright miscalculations that reduce the effectiveness of the criminal law regulation of the group of crimes under consideration.

The Criminal Law of 1960 was a more perfect system of crimes against health and endangering life and health.

Chapter 3 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR included crimes against health, crimes against personal freedom and crimes endangering life and health. Among the crimes against health, the Criminal Code of 1960 distinguished between bodily injuries, which, depending on the severity of the consequences, were divided into serious bodily injuries (Article 108 of the Criminal Code), less serious (Article 109 of the Criminal Code) and light bodily injuries (Article 112 of the Criminal Code). Light bodily injuries were divided into those that caused a short-term health disorder or a slight permanent disability (part 1 of article 112 of the Criminal Code) and did not entail the consequences specified in part 1 (part 2 of article 112 of the Criminal Code).

The subjective side of grievous and less grievous bodily harm was that they could be caused both intentionally and through negligence. Criminal liability for minor bodily harm was only imposed if it was intentionally inflicted.

The composition of the crimes of causing grievous and less grievous bodily harm included qualifying signs. The qualifying signs of grievous bodily injury were if it:

a) caused the death of the victim;

b) was in the nature of torment or torture;

c) was committed by a particularly dangerous recidivist (Part 2 of Article 108 of the Criminal Code).

A qualifying sign of intentional less serious bodily injury was recognized if it:

a) was in the nature of torment or torture;

b) was committed by a particularly dangerous recidivist (Part 2 of Article 109 of the Criminal Code). But if intentional serious or less serious bodily harm was inflicted in a state of strong emotional excitement (Article 110 of the Criminal Code) or when the limits of necessary defense were exceeded (Article 111 of the Criminal Code), then it was classified as a less dangerous type.

The Criminal Code of 1960 was in force and existed for 37 years. Since January 1, 1997, the Criminal Code has been in force in Russia, adopted State Duma May 24, 1996 (entered into force on January 1, 1997).

N.S. Tagantsev wrote that "bodily injury should cover all cases of causing physical pain or suffering ...". Similar definitions of bodily injury were given by S.V. Poznyshev, I.Ya. Foinitsky and others. However, A.A. Zhizhilenko referred to bodily injuries only those that encroach on bodily integrity by violating the integrity of the human body, and he attributed violence against a person to encroachments on bodily integrity by causing physical pain.

In modern criminal law literature, the discussion on the topic of "bodily injury" continues. So, P.A. Dubovets writes that blows, beatings and other violent acts associated with causing physical pain, as well as all other bodily injuries, are harmful to human health. This definition traces the position of A.A. Zhizhilenko, who deserves all the support. It reflects to a greater extent the desire to protect human health, to ensure his right to physical (corporal) integrity, and, ultimately, to ensure the safety of the health of citizens. A.A. Piontkovsky.

However, there have been many criticisms of this understanding of "bodily injury". MM. Grodzinsky, for example, wrote that "... the very possibility of the existence of such a bodily injury that would not be associated with a health disorder is questionable, any bodily injury will always be inevitably associated with a health disorder." I.A. opposed the broad definition of the concept of bodily injury. Ismailov, D.S. Chitlov and other authors. It seems that bodily injury as a generic concept can be defined as follows. These are, first of all, acts that violate the anatomical integrity of organs and tissues or their physiological functions, as well as encroaching on physical (bodily) integrity, that is, on the safety of the health of citizens. Of course, acts that violate the anatomical integrity of organs and tissues should be criminally illegal and punishable. Otherwise, depending on the specific situation, they can be a way to protect the interests of the individual, society, state with the necessary defense.

The legislator in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not use the concept of "bodily injury". However, it does not lose its significance; moreover, it is possible that it can be applied again in the legislation, as evidenced by judicial practice.

In fairness, it should be noted that not all authors share the idea that the concept of "bodily injury" should be among the signs of intentional harm to health. So, A.N. Krasikov writes that the refusal of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from the concept of "bodily injury" was carried out "quite rightly." However, many textbooks on criminal law, comments on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which last years published in in large numbers different teams, give grounds to assert that the term "bodily injury" remained in the theory of criminal law.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996 in Part 1 of Art. 111 did not use the term “bodily injury”, and included “deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm that is dangerous to human life” or entailed specific grave consequences among the signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.

Analyzing the history of the institute for the development of criminal liability for causing grievous harm to human health, it can be noted that the crimes in question have passed in their development long haul, starting from vague constructions and ending with stable generalized descriptions of the elements of crimes in the modern criminal legislation of our state.

2. It must be remembered that the main source of legislation formation is the analysis historical experience lawmaking and practice of application of the criminal law. The analysis of historical experience and the practice of applying the criminal law fully justify the inclusion in the number of signs of the analyzed crime and the infliction of bodily harm dangerous to the life of the victim. This would meet both the general requirements of legislative technique and the style of presentation of normative material. In grave and especially grave crimes, the concepts used to describe the signs of these acts must be formally defined, i.e. identical to their content, have high information content and semantic rigidity, which, in turn, excludes vague wording, deviation of the meaning of a legal term from the commonly used one.

The legislator in the current Criminal Code abandoned the concept of "bodily injury", and used another concept of "deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm dangerous to human life." But the term "injury" does not lose its meaning, moreover, it is possible that it can be used again in the legislation, as evidenced by judicial practice. Moreover, many textbooks on criminal law, comments on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which in recent years have been published in large numbers by different teams, give reason to assert that the term "bodily injury" has remained in the theory of criminal law.

CHAPTER 2 Legal characteristics of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

2.1 Objective signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

Deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm is one of the most dangerous crimes against health. It is categorized under criminal law. serious crimes, and in the presence of especially aggravating circumstances, to the category of especially grave crimes. The increased social danger of this crime lies in the severity of the act itself, the consequences that have occurred, and, finally, in the prevalence of such acts. Deliberately causing serious harm to health, the subject of the crime encroaches on one of the most valuable virtues of the individual - this is her health, thereby causing irreparable damage.

The direct object of the crime in question is the health of another person, but there is another opinion: "the direct object can be defined as the anatomical integrity of the human body and the correct functioning of its tissues and organs." This definition of the object of the crime has a certain incorrectness, since harm to health can be caused without violating the anatomical integrity of the body, and the correct functioning of tissues and organs can be disrupted even before harm is caused to health. criminal acts. A person may not even experience physical pain, and harm to health is caused, for example, by the introduction of narcotic drugs. It follows from this that the signs indicated by the authors of this position did not suffer, but harm to health was caused. Therefore, it is more correct to determine that the direct object of grievous bodily harm is the health of another person. From a medical point of view, health is a state of balance in the functions of all its organs and its body with external environment, in which there are no painful changes.

The Charter of the World Health Organization provides the following wording: health (of an individual) is a state of complete socio-biological and psychological well-being, when the functions of all organs and systems are balanced with nature and the social environment and there are no disease states and physical defects.

The objective side of the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm can be expressed both in the action and in the inaction of the perpetrator.

The composition of the crime in question refers to the type of material. Thus, the obligatory signs of the objective side are the onset of a criminal consequence, expressed in the infliction of grievous bodily harm, and the causal relationship between these actions (inaction) and the ensuing consequence. The actions of the perpetrator (the subject of the crime) are always intentional, illegal acts that can be expressed in a mechanical, physical, chemical or mental impact on the victim. Causing harm to health by inaction is possible when the perpetrator does not perform certain actions that he could and was obliged to perform in relation to another person.

The concept of "serious harm to health" is characterized by many features specified in the disposition of the article. These features are exhaustive. The presence of at least one of these signs gives grounds for recognizing the harm caused to health as serious.

The practical application of the signs specified in the disposition of the article depends on the forensic medical opinion, since they are based on medical indicators. Thus, serious harm to health can be of two types:

) life-threatening harm;

) harm that is not life-threatening, but expressed in specific consequences, which are specified in the law.

Life-threatening are those types of harm to health that in themselves threaten life at the time of application and, in their usual course, end in death or create a real threat to the life of the victim, regardless of end result. A feature of this harm to health is its danger to life immediately at the time of application (infliction), and not at a later time.

Thus, the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of the city of Novosibirsk considered the case against Anisimov A.A., who intentionally caused serious bodily harm dangerous to human life to Simagin, and was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The crime was committed by him in the Zaeltsovsky district of the city of Novosibirsk under the following circumstances:

On 11.2009 at about 11.00 a.m. Simagin V.V., who lives on Kropotkina Street, 124 sq. 52 Zaeltsovsky district of the city of Novosibirsk, went to the landing where he kept his bicycle, but did not find his bicycle. Thinking that the bicycle had been stolen by A.A. Anisimov, a neighbor from apartment No. 54, Simagin, passing by his apartment, hit the door of apartment No. 54 with his fist and went to his apartment. At this time, Anisimov A.A. came out of apartment No. 54, and when he saw Simagin V.V., he had the intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Simagin. Anisimov A.A., realizing his criminal intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Simagin, realizing the public danger of his actions, foreseeing the possibility of causing grievous bodily harm to Simagin and wanting to inflict it, grabbed him by his clothes and dragged Simagin into the hallway of his apartment, where he deliberately inflicted Simagin was punched three times in the face, thereby causing bodily harm to Simagin, namely: an injury to the left eye in the form of a penetrating corneal wound, wounds of the eyebrow and lower eyelid on the left, indicated as “cut”. The above injury resulted in loss of vision in the left eye and is regarded as a serious bodily injury.

Signs of serious harm, not life-threatening, but expressed in specific consequences, are exhaustively listed in the disposition of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The severity of the harm caused by the crime is determined on the basis of the Government Decree of August 17, 2007 N 522 “On Approval of the Rules for Determining the Severity of Harm Caused to Human Health”. On the this moment as amended on March 24, 2011.

Loss of vision is understood as complete permanent blindness in both eyes or when there is a decrease in vision to a visual acuity of 0.04 or less. Loss of vision in one eye represents the loss of organ function, and loss of one eyeball represents loss of the organ.

Loss of speech means the loss of a person's ability to express their thoughts in articulate sounds that are understandable to others, or loss of voice.

The concept of hearing loss refers to complete deafness or a condition where the victim cannot hear colloquial speech at a distance of 5 cm from the auricle.

The loss of an organ or the loss of its functions by this organ means the following: loss of an arm, leg - their separation from the body or the loss of their functions by these organs.

The characteristic under consideration includes damage to the genital organs, which is accompanied by a loss of productive ability, which refers to the ability to copulate or the loss of the ability to fertilize, conceive, bear a fetus and procreate.

Signs of serious harm to health include a health disorder associated with a significant permanent loss of general ability to work, but not less than one third. A permanent loss of general ability to work includes a long-term health disorder for more than 120 days or loss of ability to work forever.

The complete loss of professional ability to work includes the inability of the victim due to the injury to perform professional features or work in the chosen specialty.

Loss of professional ability to work is established by a forensic medical examination on the basis of the Rules for establishing the degree of loss of professional ability to work as a result of an accident at work and occupational diseases, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 16, 2000 No. 789.

The perpetrator will be held liable on this basis only in the case when he wished by his actions to completely deprive the victim of professional ability to work, since the law specifically indicates that such consequences are known for the guilty occurrence.

Termination of pregnancy as a sign of serious harm to health does not depend on the timing of pregnancy. In order to qualify the actions of the perpetrator on this basis, he must be aware of the fact that the victim is pregnant.

Serious harm to health is also recognized as a mental disorder, which does not depend on the degree of its severity, duration and curability. Mental disorder can occur both as a result of physical trauma and mental shock, but it must be in a direct causal relationship with the trauma received or the message that led to the mental shock.

For the first time, a sign of serious harm to health has been introduced into Russian criminal law - a disease of drug addiction or substance abuse. Drug addiction is a painful addiction to the use of narcotic drugs, and substance abuse is the abuse for the purpose of intoxication of substances that are not recognized as narcotic by regulatory enactments. The disease of drug addiction or substance abuse occurs under the influence of the illegal actions of the perpetrator. It causes the victim an irresistible craving for the use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic or toxic substances. The method of bringing the victim to such a painful state can be the repeated forcible introduction of drugs or toxic substances into his body.

Permanent disfigurement of the face refers to the infliction of such harm in the region of the face, which gives it an extremely ugly and ugly appearance. It cannot be eliminated with conventional methods of therapeutic exposure and does not go away on its own. In this case, the legislator takes into account not so much the severity of the harm to the health of the victim, since it can be attributed to moderate harm or even to the lung, how much considers the consequences that such disfigurement causes.

In the literature, one can often find the assertion that the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, which negligently caused the death of the victim, encroaches on the health and life of a person. Only some authors consider this crime an encroachment on human health, and the onset of death is regarded by them as a qualifying circumstance. Agreeing that the crime in question is two-objective, i.e. encroaches on the safety of human health and life, we believe it is necessary to explain and disclose the content of these objects, which can be identified from the analysis of the essence of social ties.

N.I. Korzhansky understands social connection as the social possibility or prohibition of a certain social behavior and the possibility of a certain state of the subjects of the relationship. On the side of one subject of social relations, there is an obligation, the prohibition of certain behavior that violates the safe state of human health and life. In these social connections, the possibility of a safe state of health and life of a person leads to the prohibition of dangerous behavior for life and health. Such a state specific person, which is undergoing its change and which cannot be completely restored, is the direct object of the analyzed crime. The state guarantees the opportunity to be in a healthy and living condition, this opportunity is also protected by criminal law.

The social essence of the crime under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is that the subject deliberately encroaches on the health of a citizen, which, in turn, causes the onset of death. In this case, it can be argued that the safety of human health is the main object of the crime, and the safety of life is additional, because its deprivation does not constitute the essence of the crime in question. The establishment of the main and additional objects affects the qualification of the deed.

The state equally protects the life and health of everyone, which expresses the equality of citizens before the law. Therefore, every citizen is a participant public relations which are established regarding the protection of life, health, honor and dignity. Influencing the participant of public relations physically, the perpetrator encroaches on public relations. Most of the crimes provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are associated with an impact on the subject of public relations. These are not only the crimes provided for in the section "Crimes against the person", but also crimes against property, against public safety, against the health of the population.

B.S. Nikiforov wrote that it is impossible to separate the interests of the individual from himself and take the individual beyond the framework of social relations, seeing in the individual a suitable object of criminal law protection, interpreting the relationship between individuals as an abstraction. The presence of the institution of necessary defense indicates that the health and life of a person as an object of criminal law protection is not a purely biological category, because otherwise the infliction of harm to health or death under no circumstances could be recognized as socially dangerous.

The only correct thing is to recognize as the object of the crime in question, the safety of life in the biological sense and health in the sense of a certain physical state of the body, creating the necessary prerequisite for full participation in social relations, providing the opportunity to live and enjoy health and the benefits of life.

For each criminal case on infliction of intentional grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim, it is necessary to establish the following objective circumstances:

)whether there has been serious bodily harm;

2)whether it caused the onset of death;

)whether there is a causal relationship between the acts of the person and the onset of grievous bodily harm;

)whether there is a causal relationship between the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm and the death of the victim;

)method of causing grievous bodily harm;

)the time and place of the crime;

)a tool that caused serious bodily harm;

)whether the act was committed in a state of necessary defense;

)whether serious harm to health was caused when the limits of necessary defense were exceeded;

)the duration of the period of time elapsed from the moment of intentional infliction of damage to the death of the victim;

)What is the property damage caused by the crime?

The most important element of the objective side of a crime is a criminal act, since only a criminal act gives rise to the subsequent links of the objective side: a causal relationship and a criminal result.

Criminal law studies human behavior outward manifestation the will of man. Only active or passive human behavior can be classified as a crime. The basis of criminal liability can only be criminal behavior, expressed in a specific act of a person, and not in the antisocial properties of a person, her thoughts, beliefs, moods. The criminal action is manifested through individual body movements, subject to the natural laws of mechanics and causing changes in the outside world. “The final moment of the action is determined by the onset of the criminal result,” writes V.N. Kudryavtsev. In our case, in accordance with Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the end point of a criminal act should be recognized as the onset of grievous bodily harm, and according to Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the death of the victim.

In the theory of criminal law, it is customary to distinguish between instantaneous crimes, multi-momental, continuing, lasting and crimes with a long-term result.

In simultaneous crimes, the beginning of the act and its end coincide. Such crimes include, for example, insult, slander, murder, causing grievous bodily harm. If the onset of criminal consequences immediately follows the action and the duration of these actions is short, then the crime can be called instantaneous. Most often, harm to health is caused precisely by one-stage crimes (almost 90% of cases).

Thus, the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of the city of Novosibirsk considered the case against Troitsky M.S. who deliberately caused grievous bodily harm, dangerous to human life and was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The crime was committed by him in the Zaeltsovsky district of the city of Novosibirsk under the following circumstances:

02.2008 at about 8 pm Troitsky M.S. was in apartment 39 at 102/4 on the street. Krasny Prospect Zaeltsovsky district of Novosibirsk, together with his relative Kiseleva I.S., where they drank alcohol. A quarrel arose between Troitsky and Kiseleva on the basis of personal hostile relations. At this time, Troitsky had a criminal intent to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm, dangerous to the life of a person, Kiseleva. Realizing his criminal intent aimed at causing grievous bodily harm to Kiseleva, a person dangerous to life, acting deliberately, realizing the public danger of his actions, foreseeing the possibility of causing grievous bodily harm to Kiseleva and wanting to cause it, but, at the same time, not wanting to cause death, took from the table with a kitchen knife and struck one blow with a knife in a vital part of the body, in the chest of Kiseleva. By his actions, Troitsky caused Kiseleva bodily injury in the form of a wound. chest on the left, penetrating into the peritoneal cavity.

In multi-stage crimes, the beginning of actions is remote in time from its end. The action in such cases has a long-term character, for example, the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, committed by special cruelty, mockery or torment for the victim.

In continued crimes, the beginning of actions will be the first criminal act out of the total number of body movements, and the last one will be its end. Serious harm to health can be caused as a result of several actions, if they are addressed to one victim, committed in one way and united by a single criminal purpose. For example, the perpetrator inflicts pain repeatedly and for a long time on the victim, mocks the victim.

In crimes with a long-term result, the initial moment of the crime is the commission of the first act of an action aimed at causing dangerous consequences, and the final moment will be the beginning of the consequences.

Establishing the initial and final moments of a criminal act is important for the correct qualification of the deed, and, consequently, for the individualization of responsibility, the application or non-application of the criminal law, the application of amnesty and the limitation period for criminal prosecution.

The study of the materials of judicial practice indicates that the main form of external expression of actions that result in serious harm to health, including those resulting in the death of the victim, is physical impact (more than 90% of cases).

Sometimes a mental impact on a person is also used (reporting certain facts, information, insult, threat).

Most often, the dispositions of articles of the Criminal Code describe a prohibited criminal act, but there are a number of articles that contain a description of only prohibited consequences. These include the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It describes the prohibited consequences, from which it can be concluded that the method of causing grievous bodily harm, taken out of connection with the consequences, has no legal significance. The legislator provides only some ways of causing grievous bodily harm as qualifying signs of this crime, this is the infliction of grievous bodily harm with particular cruelty, mockery or torment for the victim and in a generally dangerous way. The above methods are classified as qualifying signs, which, together with the signs of the main type of crime described in Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation characterize the increased danger of the act.

The nature of public danger, in relation to the crime in question, is described by means of the signs contained in Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, while the increased public danger of this crime is described using the qualifying signs provided for in Part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and especially qualifying signs described in parts 3 and 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Studying the objective signs of the offense of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, I would like to pay serious attention to the identity of the victim. Along with the study of general social and socio-psychological qualities inherent in the personality of the victim, significant importance was attached to victimological aspects. Victimization is a special characteristic expressed in the inability to avoid one's own victimization, in conditions where it is objectively possible, or in a high degree of probability of becoming a victim of a crime due to the social roles or other circumstances. The study of victims of crimes, in this case, the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, allows us to identify certain patterns that indicate that their totality is not a mechanical set. individuals, but a certain phenomenon that has some common properties, qualities, characteristics. Certain features of the personality of the subjects that form this set are formed under the influence of a stable set of circumstances inherent in the relationships between people that develop in everyday everyday reality. Most of these circumstances are negative. It can be argued that the mechanisms of formation of the personality of criminals and the personality of their victims have a number of common patterns, a fairly high degree of interdependence. The victim of a crime plays an essential role in the genesis of a criminal situation. As a rule, this circumstance is associated with imprudent, frivolous, immoral, provocative, and sometimes illegal behavior of a potential victim. A tendency was established for the growth of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm in a socially unstable marginal environment, a characteristic attribute of which is drunkenness, alcoholism, drug addiction and substance abuse. Such a way of life is supplemented by systematic quarrels, including on domestic grounds, fights, brawls, acts of theft. The motives of crimes committed by representatives of this environment are formally manifested in the form of revenge, envy, treason. A large number of crimes, namely the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, are committed when both the perpetrator and the victim were intoxicated, and alcohol was consumed together. Sometimes the victim plays a more active role than the perpetrator. He brings up a criminal in a peculiar way, leads him to a criminal event. Sometimes the victim herself stimulates the emergence of the corresponding situation. In family and other forms of domestic relations, aggressive-violent behavior is becoming more widespread, which often resembles various forms manifestations of extremism. In this regard, it can be noted that very often the victims of crimes, due to their nature, needs, dominant motives of behavior, actively go towards the crime, often provoking the perpetrator. In other words, many citizens who are guilty of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm and the victims belong to the same social environment.

2.2 Subjective signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

The subjective side of the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm is characterized by guilt in the form of intent. The perpetrator is aware that by his actions he encroaches on the health of another person, foresees the possibility or inevitability of the onset socially dangerous consequences(causing grievous harm to his health) and wishes the onset of these consequences. Intention can be specific and non-specific.

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in Part 4 of Art. 111 singled out as a particularly qualifying sign the infliction of grievous bodily harm, provided for in the first, second or third parts of this article, which negligently caused the death of the victim. In law enforcement practice, there are enough difficulties associated with the qualification and delimitation of this crime from murder and causing death by negligence.

Difficulties in qualification are due, firstly, to the establishment of the signs described in the first, second and third parts of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, secondly, by understanding the term “resulting” and, thirdly, by establishing signs that characterize the subjective side of this type of crime.

In the theory of criminal law, cases of careless attitude to qualifying circumstances in an intentional crime are called a double form of guilt. Intention in relation to the primary consequence (causing grievous bodily harm) and negligence in relation to the secondary consequence (causing death) determine the procedure for considering the subjective side of the crime under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

To understand the content and name of this phenomenon, forensic scientists went in different ways. Some believed that it combines separate elements of intent and negligence and represents “a single psychological act in form and content, consisting of relatively independent components”, i.e. are the third, independent form of guilt, occupying an intermediate position between intent and negligence.

Crimes with a double form of guilt imply a strong causal relationship between the perpetrator's performance of actions containing signs of the main crime and the onset of additional, derivative consequences. These consequences can only be imputed to a person if they are due to the commission of the underlying crime.

If the main crime is material (part 1 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), then the cause of the onset of the derivative consequence is not the action itself, but its consequences. In this crime (causing grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim), the cause of death of the victim is grievous bodily harm.

In the legal literature, the difference between direct and indirect intent is generally recognized in the volitional element of the conscious assumption of socially dangerous consequences or in an indifferent attitude towards them. With indirect intent, the will of the person is passive in relation to possible harm to health. This allows us to consider encroachments on health with indirect intent less dangerous. Sometimes the greater severity of the crimes in question, committed with direct intent, was justified by their greater prevalence, although the mentioned circumstance was not confirmed. A study of judicial practice indicates that the infliction of grievous bodily harm is much more often (about four times) committed with indirect intent.

Theories of criminal law are known and other varieties of intent. Depending on the moment of formation, intent was differentiated into domestic literature to premeditated, suddenly arisen and cold-bloodedly implemented and affected.

It is customary to call intent suddenly arising (simple) in which the intention to commit a crime appears in the perpetrator momentarily, spontaneously and is immediately carried out. Often, the fleeting formation of intent is facilitated by the situation that provokes the commission of a crime, more often such intent arises as a result of an inadequate reaction of a bully to a correctly made remark, an inadequate reaction to a minor offense caused to the victims.

Premeditated intent is characterized by the preliminary mental activity of a person before the start of the crime. The formation of a motive, setting a goal testify to this type of intent, the occurrence of which is separated from the commission of a crime by a period of time. The named type of intent usually indicates a persistent antisocial orientation of the individual and is regarded as more dangerous than the sudden one.

Indeed, in some cases, premeditated intent may indicate a greater danger to the person and the deed, but this is not a universal way to assess the deed. A hooligan who inadequately reacts to a fair remark, inflicted grievous bodily harm, negligently resulting in the death of the victim, must bear increased responsibility. While a person unjustly offended, out of a sense of pity, refused revenge, but then nevertheless committed a crime, should be punished less severely.

Intent is also differentiated depending on the degree of concretization by the guilty of the criminal consequences of the acts committed. On this basis, in the theory of criminal law, certain (specified), indefinite (non-specified) and alternative intent are distinguished. Definite intent occurs when the subject has accurately determined desired result(I wanted, for example, to deprive the victim of any organ, to disfigure his face).

With an indefinite intent, the infliction of harm to health was covered by the consciousness of the perpetrator, but it was not specified, the severity of the harm to health was not determined. Crimes committed with indefinite intent should be qualified depending on the actual harm to health. Most intentional crimes against health are committed with unspecified intent.

In criminal law literature, dedicated to the problems guilt and liability for causing harm to health regarding an indefinite (non-specified) intent, a number of opposing judgments were expressed. Some authors recognized the concept of definite and indefinite intent as vicious, since it allegedly leads to the replacement of certainty and clarity by uncertainty and conjecture, leads away from a thorough analysis of the subjective signs of a crime and causes errors in qualification.

V.V. Orekhov, objecting to the qualification of the actions of the perpetrator depending on the actual harm to health, believes that such a qualification leads to an unreasonable mitigation of repression. However most of authors in recent times such a differentiation of intent, depending on the degree of concretization of the criminal consequences by the guilty person, is recognized as necessary and links it with the qualification of the deed.

It seems that the time has come to resolve these issues at the legislative level.

In practice, it is far from easy to determine with what kind of intent the perpetrator caused serious bodily harm - with definite or indefinite, on which the correct assessment of his actions sometimes depends.

Depending on the degree of concretization of the perpetrators of the criminal consequences, alternative intent is also distinguished. Acting with alternative intent, the perpetrator foresees the occurrence of several consequences, and his will is aimed at achieving not one of these consequences, but equally any of them. For example, the perpetrator foresees that as a result of his actions, the death of the victim may occur or serious bodily harm will be caused. As a result of the deed, serious bodily harm was actually caused. The perpetrator must be prosecuted for attempted murder. If the perpetrator foresees the possibility of causing harm to the health of the victim of any severity, then in the event of causing minor harm to health, he must be held responsible for the attempted infliction of grievous bodily harm.

The study of judicial practice shows that courts and investigating authorities often do not take into account the differences in the types of intent and make mistakes in qualifying crimes.

The solution to the question of the correct qualification of the deed must be linked with the establishment of the nature of bodily injuries inflicted on vital organs human body when the perpetrator is aware of the incompatibility of the damage he inflicts with the life of the victim.

The subject of this crime is a sane person who has reached the age of 14 years.

Establishing criminal liability for some intentional crimes against health from the age of 14 is fully justified. Already from this age, a teenager is fully aware of what socially dangerous actions he commits, what is their harmfulness, and can fully perceive the corrective labor impact of punishment. However, even in these cases, the possibility, in the presence of extenuating circumstances, of transferring the case to the commission on juvenile affairs and applying measures of an educational nature (sending to an educational colony, bail to parents) is not ruled out.

Thus, the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk convicted Kapralov D.E., Grigoriev S.D., Lopatkin M.A., Stasov A.A. by a group of persons by prior agreement, negligently entailing the death of the victim. The crime was committed by them under the following circumstances:

07.2009 at about 02:00 Kapralov and Grigoriev in the courtyard of the house number 16 on the street. D. Kovalchuk of the Zaeltsovsky district of Novosibirsk, after drinking alcohol together with Lopatkin and Stasov, went around the corner of the indicated house, and Lopatkin and Stasov remained in the courtyard of the house, where they continued to drink alcohol. At the end of the house number 16 on the street. D. Kovalchuk Kapralov and Grigoriev saw Pirozhkov Ya.P. Between Pirozhkov, on the one hand, Kapralov and Grigoriev, on the other hand, a quarrel broke out on the basis of a sudden personal hostile relationship. During the quarrel, Kapralov and Grigoriev, who were in a state of alcoholic intoxication, had a criminal intent to intentionally cause grievous bodily harm to Pirozhkov. Realizing their joint criminal intent aimed at intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm to Pirozhkov, Grigoriev and Kapralov, acting deliberately, jointly, realizing the nature and degree of public danger of their actions, foreseeing the possibility of causing grievous bodily harm to Pirozhkov, life-threatening and wishing to inflict it, but not wanting to cause death, they jointly inflicted multiple kicks and punches on Pirozhkov's head and torso. After that, Grigoriev and Kapralov returned to the courtyard of the house number 16 on the street. D. Kovalchuk, where they informed Lopatkin and Stasov about the incident and offered to jointly continue to implement their criminal intent to intentionally cause grievous bodily harm to Pirozhkov, to which Lopatkin and Stasov agreed. After that, Grigoriev, Kapralov, Stasov and Lopatkin ran to the end of the house. Pirozhkov at that time remained lying at the end of the house number 16 on the street. D. Kovalchuk. Having run up to Pirozhkov, Grigoriev, Kapralov, Stasov and Lopatkin, continuing to realize their joint criminal intent to cause grievous bodily harm, dangerous to life and wanting to cause it, but not wanting to cause death, inflicted multiple blows on Pirozhkov with their feet and hands on the head and torso of the latter . As a result of the deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm, dangerous to human life, caused by Grigoriev, Lopatkin, Stasov and Kapralov, Pirozhkov died. Pirozhkov's death was due to a closed chest and abdominal injury with damage to the lungs and liver, which caused profuse blood loss. At the time of the commission of this crime, Grigoriev, Stasov, Lopatkin and Kapralov were 15 years old. They were found guilty of committing a crime under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced to 6 (six) years in prison with serving the sentence in an educational colony.

1. Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm - the most dangerous crime of health crimes. The law classifies it as a serious crime, and in the presence of especially aggravating circumstances - especially serious crimes. The increased social danger of this crime lies in the severity of the act itself, the consequences that have occurred, and, finally, in the prevalence of such acts.

2. The most important element of the corpus delicti, namely the objective side, is a criminal act, since only a criminal act gives rise to the subsequent links of the objective side: a causal relationship and a criminal result. The actions of the perpetrator are expressed in the mechanical, physical, chemical and mental impact on the victim. Serious harm to human health can also be caused by inaction, if the perpetrator does not perform certain actions that he should have and could have performed in relation to another person, which entails harm to his health. Mandatory signs of the objective side are the onset of a criminal consequence, expressed in the infliction of grievous bodily harm, the signs of which are exhaustively listed in the disposition of the article under consideration.

Crime, like any human act, is the result of the interaction of individual personality traits and an objective (external to the individual) situation in which a person makes a specific behavioral decision.

Each individual crime is determined, on the one hand, by the personal characteristics of a given individual - his needs, interests, motives, goals, and, ultimately, views and attitudes towards various social values ​​and institutions, including legal prescriptions and prohibitions; on the other hand, it is a set of external objective circumstances that, interacting with personal circumstances, cause the intention and determination to commit an intentional crime.

CHAPTER 3 Problems of qualification and criminal liability for the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

1 Qualifying signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

Part 2 Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains a list of qualifying signs that give the legislator reason to increase the level of responsibility.

In the criminal law, among the qualifying signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, such as the commission of this crime against a person or his relatives in connection with the performance of official activities by this person or the performance of public duty (clause "a" part 2 of article 111 of the Criminal Code RF).

Official activity should be understood as the actions of a person based on the law, which are included in the circle of his official powers. At the same time, it absolutely does not matter where the victim worked, it can be government agency or other institution or organization. The performance of official activities should be understood as any activity of the victim, which is the performance of his duties in the service.

The fulfillment of a public duty includes the fulfillment by a citizen of duties specially assigned to him or the commission of voluntary actions by him in the interests of society or individuals. Such duties include, for example, participation in the maintenance of order in in public places, the activities of deputies, their assistants, jurors, reporting to the authorities of the region or the Federation about a serious crime being prepared or already committed.

The moment of causing grievous bodily harm may be different. If the purpose of the crime is the suppression of the legitimate activity of the victim, then it can be caused before the start or at the time of its implementation. If the purpose of causing grievous bodily harm is revenge for an already performed official duty or public duty, then this crime can be committed after the victim has performed his lawful functions.

By "relatives" should be understood persons who include relatives in ascending and descending lines, as well as other people close for any other reason, for example, friendship, love, respect. Causing serious harm to the health of loved ones is a way of influencing citizens in order to force them to abandon their activities, revenge for already performed official or public duties, or a way to suppress them.

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 1 of January 27, 1999 “On Judicial Practice in Cases of Murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)” recommends that other citizens who are related (relatives spouse), as well as persons whose life, health and well-being are obviously dear to the victim due to established personal relationships.

In paragraph "b" part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for the infliction of grievous bodily harm in relation to a minor or other person who is obviously in a helpless state, as well as with special cruelty, mockery or torment for the victim, which is quite justified due to a number of circumstances.

Thus, the introduction of a qualifying sign of special cruelty is justified because torment and torture did not cover all cases that testified to the special cruelty of the offender, which often led to inconsistencies in judicial practice.

The concept of "special cruelty" is generic in relation to the concepts of "bullying" and "torment", which are varieties of special cruelty. A sign of special cruelty is also manifested in cases of deliberate infliction of harm to health through torment, when in the process of committing a crime the perpetrator uses torture, torture, and inflicts special suffering on the victim.

Thus, the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of the city of Novosibirsk considered the case against Levchenko AND.S. and was convicted under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The crime was committed by him in the Zaeltsovsky district of the city of Novosibirsk under the following circumstances:

01.2008 at about 04:00 a.m. 23 houses 17/1 on the street. Refrigerating Zaeltsovsky district of Novosibirsk between Levchenko I.S. and Levchenko I.V. on the basis of personal hostile relations there was a quarrel, during which Levchenko I.S. there was a criminal intent to cause grievous bodily harm Levchenko AND.The. After that, Levchenko I.S. in order to realize his criminal intent, acting deliberately, in order to cause grievous bodily harm to Levchenko IV, inflicted at least 25 punches and kicks on various parts of the body and head. At the same time, Levchenko I.S., inflicting multiple intravital injuries, showed particular cruelty and deliberately, wanting this, caused Levchenko I.The. special pain and suffering. As a result of criminal actions Levchenko AND.C., aimed at causing grievous bodily harm with particular cruelty and torment, the victim Levchenko AND.The. the following bodily injuries were inflicted: damage to the right lung, extensor fractures of the ribs on the right, hemorrhage into the soft tissues of the chest surface, an extensive crush lesion of the right lobe of the liver, rupture of the liver, hemorrhage into the soft tissues of the cranial vault. As a result of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, dangerous to human life, caused by Levchenko AND.C., Levchenko AND.The. passed away. Death of Levchenko I.V. came from a closed injury of the chest and abdomen with damage to the lungs and liver, which caused profuse blood loss. Special cruelty in the actions of Levchenko I.S. is seen in connection with the fact that Levchenko AND.C. for a long time caused multiple bodily injuries to Levchenko IV, causing her torment and suffering.

Causing grievous bodily harm, coupled with mockery of the victim, means that the perpetrator, committing the specified crime, mocked the victim, accompanied his deeds with insults.

The use by the guilty person of the state of the victim, in which he is deprived of the opportunity to defend himself, speaks of the special cruelty of the criminal and his lack of elementary moral qualities. This allowed the legislator to provide for the helpless state of the victim as a qualifying sign (paragraph “b” of part 2 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, committed in a generally dangerous way (clause "c" part 2 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), includes the conscious use by the guilty of such a method of causing grievous bodily harm, which, in addition to the chosen victim, represents real danger for the health of others. The legislator does not specify the methods of violence that are dangerous for many people. It leaves the court to decide this issue, based on the specific circumstances of the criminal case. Judicial practice refers to methods that are dangerous to the lives of many people, indiscriminate shooting in a public place in the presence of a large number of people, arson of a house, flooding. Most often, in such cases, death is caused to one, while others are harmed to health of varying severity. The general danger of this method of encroachment lies precisely in the fact that it is dangerous to the life and health of many people. This method occurs when the perpetrator, wishing to cause serious harm to the health of a particular person, performs actions that endanger the life and health of other persons, and also when the perpetrator, not having the goal of causing serious harm to the health of a particular person, commits actions that create danger for the life and health of many people. As a result, the perpetrator causes grievous harm to one person or several, acting with indirect intent.

When imputing paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it does not matter whether harmful consequences for other persons have occurred or not. In the event of such consequences, the deed must be qualified in addition to paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation also under paragraph "b" part 3 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In this particular case we are talking about the actual infliction of grievous bodily harm to two or more persons). Or qualify under other articles of the Criminal Code, providing for liability for intentional infliction of minor bodily harm and intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm.

In paragraph "d" part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as a qualifying sign of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, the commission of this crime for hire is provided.

The commission of the crime in question for hire, i.e. infliction of grievous bodily harm on order, is characterized by the desire of the performer to receive remuneration from the "customer", who most often acts, and sometimes the organizer of the crime. The contractor implements the intention of the "customer", which is responsible for complicity in the crime under paragraph "d" part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The organizer or instigator is not always guided by selfish motives. More often these crimes are committed by them out of revenge, jealousy, on the basis of personal and domestic hostile relations.

A selfish motive is a conscious urge to obtain a property benefit, material benefit or profit. This guides the person in the commission of the crime in question for hire. In such cases, the source of action of the perpetrator, his internal driving force is "a passion for acquisition, for profit, production."

Causing grievous harm out of hooligan motives in accordance with paragraph “d” part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is also a qualifying feature of the analyzed crime. The study of judicial practice indicates that this qualifying feature in the crime in question occurs more often than others specified in Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Mischief, selfish interests, envy, impudence, a desire to oppose oneself to everything in common as a whole, to attract attention, even in such a criminal way, can be a hooligan motive. Bully urges arise from disrespect human dignity, indifferent attitude to public interests, disregard for the laws and rules of conduct, generally accepted morality.

Hooligan assaults also include those that are committed on a minor occasion as a pretext. But do not confuse an insignificant reason and hooligan motives in the case when the victim and the perpetrator long time are in a hostile relationship, sometimes a small spark is enough to cause an outburst of anger.

To establish hooligan motives, it is necessary to analyze all the actions of the perpetrator that took place at the time of the crime.

Quite often, sentences and pre-trial practice refer to the infliction of grievous bodily harm out of hooligan motives without specifying what they were.

Thus, Polikarpov D.Yu. was convicted by the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District. according to paragraph "d" part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for the fact that at about 10 p.m., while intoxicated in his apartment, out of hooligan motives, he stabbed his mother in the hand, causing her serious bodily harm. In the supervisory authority, the case was reviewed and a decision was made to re-qualify the actions of Polikarpov D.Yu. with paragraph "d" part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the conclusion that Polikarpov committed a crime out of hooligan motives, the court in the verdict motivated only by the fact that there were no reasons other than alcohol intoxication for causing harm to the health of the convicts. However, according to the materials of the criminal case, it was clear that Polikarpov and his mother (the victim) were constantly quarreling on domestic grounds, which indicates the presence of hostile relations between them. Under such circumstances, the conclusion that the crime was committed out of hooligan motives cannot be considered justified.

The infliction of grievous bodily harm is often the result of unreasonable pestering of passers-by, the desire to vent anger on someone.

Sometimes the error is caused by the exaggerated importance given to the scene of the crime. Hooligan motives are characterized by the desire for demonstrativeness, publicity of their actions in order to show a clear contempt for the norms of behavior in society. However, hooligan urges can also manifest themselves outside of public places or in the absence of strangers. The root of such errors is that the factors that characterize the circumstances and place of the crime are assessed without regard to motives.

The greatest difficulty in practice is the delimitation of the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm out of hooligan motives from the commission of this crime in a fight and quarrel, which is almost 30% of all crimes classified under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of the city of Novosibirsk considered the case against Korobeinikov A.V., who intentionally caused serious bodily harm, and was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The crime was committed by him in the Zaeltsovsky district of the city of Novosibirsk under the following circumstances:

On 10.2008, at about 20:15, Korobeinikov, being in a state of intoxication, was at the Semerochka store located on the street. Bestuzhev, Zaeltsovsky district, Novosibirsk. Also near the indicated store was Shumov, unfamiliar to Korobeinikov. In the process of communication between Shumov and Korobeinikov, a mutual quarrel occurred, which grew into a mutual fight. Shumov, in order to stop the actions of Korobeinikov, called for help his friend, the security guard of the Semerochka store Kuznetsov. Kuznetsov, leaving the store, went up to Korobeinikov and, taking him by the sleeve of his clothes, led him by force in the direction of the store. At this time, Korobeinikov had a criminal intent to cause grievous bodily harm to Kuznetsov. Realizing his criminal intent aimed at causing grievous bodily harm dangerous to human life, realizing the public danger of his actions, foreseeing the possibility of causing grievous bodily harm dangerous to Kuznetsov’s life and wishing to inflict it, Korobeinikov swung right hand and deliberately inflicted one blow with his right fist on the head of Kuznetsov, causing him a closed craniocerebral injury in the form of a moderate brain contusion with compression of the brain by a subdural hematoma in the left parietal-vesical region, a fracture of the base of the skull, a left-sided hemotympanum, with the development of a left-sided deafness, which is regarded as a serious bodily harm.

For the first time in Russian criminal law, the legislator provided for in paragraph “e” of Part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the commission of the crime in question based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or on the basis of hatred or enmity in relation to any social group. In the current socio-political situation in Russia, this qualifying feature is fully justified. The reasons for the aggravation of relations between people of different nationalities and nationalities arose in the period of totalitarianism. Entire peoples and nationalities, on criminal orders, moved from their national homeland to other localities. Now, when justice is being restored and the illegally evicted population is returning to the places of its former permanent residence, their centers turn out to be occupied by citizens of another nationality. As a result, in a number of cases, hatred or enmity arises, which takes on a national coloring. As a rule, the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, falling under paragraph “e” of Part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code, is committed with direct intent, since the motive in this case characterizes the purpose of the crime.

In order to qualify the infliction of grievous bodily harm under paragraph "e" h. 2 Article. 111 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to establish a specific motive, it is political, ideological, national, racial, religious hatred or enmity. Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees the equality of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of his national, racial or religious affiliation Therefore, this type of crime is determined by increased danger.

The legislator also referred to the qualifying signs the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm for the purpose of using the organs or tissues of the victim (clause “g”, part 2 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). This crime is committed in order to suppress the resistance or against the will of the victim to remove any organ or tissue from him.

Organ and tissue transplantation is a method of treatment that involves an operation that saves the life or health of a patient (recipient) by harming a healthy person (donor). The production of such operations is regulated by the law “On transplantation of organs and (or) tissues”. In accordance with the mentioned law, the removal of organs and (or) tissues from healthy person with his consent, which caused harm to his health, should be considered lawful in some cases. During this operation, for example, a kidney, a lung and other organs and (or) tissues, the list of which is determined by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation together with Russian Academy medical sciences. The Law "On Transplantation of Human Organs and (or) Tissues" prohibits the transplantation of organs, their parts and tissues related to the process of human reproduction.

3.2 Particularly qualifying signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm

The legislator attributed to the especially qualifying features of the analyzed crime the commission of it by a group of persons, a group of persons by prior agreement or an organized group (clause "a" part 3 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). It should be noted that similar signs appeared in many articles of the Criminal Code due to the need to strengthen the fight against organized crime. However, it is unlikely that organized groups, engaging in drug trafficking or arms trafficking, will cause serious harm to health. Of course, as a way to influence competitors and "disobedient" officials, violence may be in the arsenal of organized groups, but so far they are choosing more dangerous view- murder.

The study of judicial practice indicates that most often the crimes in question are committed alone - 75% of cases. This fact can be explained by the fact that most often crimes that infringe on human health are committed with sudden intent.

The specified crime is recognized as committed by a group of persons when two or more persons act jointly with intent aimed at causing grievous bodily harm. Or when these persons were directly involved in the process of causing harm to the health of the victim, they used violence against him. At the same time, it is not even necessary that the damage was caused by each of them (for example, one suppressed the resistance of the victim, deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself, and the other caused him damage).

It should be recognized as the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm committed by a group of persons even when, in the process of committing actions by one person aimed at intentionally causing harm, another person or other persons joined him for the same purpose.

A special social danger of deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm committed by a group of persons lies in the fact that such a crime reduces, and sometimes does not give at all, the opportunity to resist the victim. In addition, the commission by a group of persons of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm expands the opportunity to hide the traces of a crime and achieve other goals, if any, were pursued when it was committed.

Thus, the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of the city of Novosibirsk considered the case against Chubykin SA. Egorova D.E. and Ivanova S.M., who intentionally caused grievous bodily harm, dangerous to human life, to Yakubov V.S. and were convicted under paragraph "a" part 3 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The crime was committed by them in the Zaeltsovsky district of the city of Novosibirsk under the following circumstances:

October 30, 2008 at about 18:00 Egorov D.E., Chubykin S.A. and Ivanov S.M., being at a construction site located at the address: st. D. Kovalchuk, 20/1 Zaeltsovsky district of the city of Novosibirsk, went up to the fifth floor of the specified object, where they approached the previously familiar V.S. Yakubov. and Chubykin S.A., having the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, on the basis of personal hostile relations, deliberately struck him two punches in the chest area, from which Yakubov The.C. fell to the floor, then Chubykin S.A., acting deliberately and purposefully, took a wooden stick located there and began to inflict multiple blows with a stick on various parts of the body of Yakubov V.S. Then to Yakubov V.S. Egorov D.E. came up. and, having intent to cause grievous bodily harm, on the basis of personal hostile relations, jumped with his feet on the chest of the lying Yakubov V.S. and jumped on it, after which to Yakubov V.S. Ivanov S.M. came up. and, having intent to cause grievous bodily harm, on the basis of personal hostile relations, inflicted V.S. Yakubov lying on the floor. three punches to the abdominal region and several punches to the right side and neck, after which Egorov D.E., Chubykin S.A. and Ivanov S.M. deliberately inflicted several punches and kicks on the body of Yakubov V.S., causing the latter the following bodily injury: blunt trauma to the chest in the form of closed fractures on both sides, with damage to the tissue of the right and left lungs (which is confirmed by bilateral pneumothorax, subcutaneous and intermuscular emphysema - the presence of free air in the chest cavity, in subcutaneous fat and in soft tissues). The indicated bodily injury is life-threatening, therefore it is regarded as a serious bodily harm.

The study of judicial practice shows that a significant part of this type of crime is committed by a group of persons by prior agreement. Preliminary conspiracy - an agreement on a crime between accomplices. It must be achieved within any period of time, but before the start of the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, more precisely, before the start of an attempt to commit it. Joining another person to the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm in the process of its commission, as follows from the text of the law, does not exclude qualification under the specified paragraph of the article.

The intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm committed by an organized group, according to its legal assessment, differs significantly from the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm committed by a group of persons. Organized group - stable group persons who have previously united to commit one or more crimes. Thus, the law, in essence, defines only two signs of an organized group: the first is its stability, and the second is that the purpose of joining the group is to commit one or more crimes.

In paragraph "b" part 3 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the commission of this crime against two or more persons is classified as a particularly qualifying sign.

Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm against two or more persons "is a combination of several crimes committed simultaneously or over a certain period of time and covered by a single criminal intent of the perpetrator." “Committed with unity of intent is the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm in relation to two or more persons in cases where the offender had intent to inflict harm on the health of several persons even before the commission of the first infliction of grievous bodily harm, and in cases where the intent to commit a second crime arose during or immediately after the first. Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm against two or more persons implies that a single crime is committed, aggravated by the infliction of grievous bodily harm to several people, as a rule, it is covered by the unity of time, place of the crime, motive and intent of the perpetrator.

There are difficulties in qualifying the deed when a person, for example, in the process of a fight, inflicts serious bodily harm to one victim on the basis of jealousy, and to another because he stood up for him.

A particularly qualifying feature of the article under consideration of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is also the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, negligently resulting in the death of the victim (part 4 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

It is necessary to ensure a thorough study and understanding by investigators and judges of the criteria developed in the theory of criminal law and law enforcement practice for distinguishing murders from intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm that negligently caused the death of the victim.

The specifics of the crime under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation consists in the fact that it is committed with two forms of guilt, when the perpetrator has direct intent in relation to mandatory consequences - grievous bodily harm, and frivolity or negligence in relation to qualifying consequences - the death of the victim. It is the form of guilt in relation to the consequences of the murder that differs from the infliction of grievous bodily harm that caused death, since only when death occurs, the intent of the perpetrator to kill is realized.

Unfortunately, in investigative and judicial practice there is a significant number of errors caused by the incorrect establishment of the form of guilt. The most typical of these is the following:

1) the actions of the perpetrator are qualified under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account his testimony, in which he denies intent to kill, arguing that he only wanted to cause harm to the victim's health. To determine the direction of intent, the form and type of guilt, it is necessary to proceed from the totality of all the circumstances of the deed and take into account the method and instruments of the crime, the number, nature and localization of bodily injuries, the preceding crime and the subsequent behavior of the perpetrator and the victim, their relationship;

) often a conclusion about the form of guilt is made, focusing on the period that has elapsed from the moment of infliction of grievous bodily harm, dangerous to life, until the onset of death. Sometimes the deed is qualified as a murder only because the death of the victim from the inflicted grievous bodily injury occurs immediately, and vice versa, as a serious bodily injury that caused the death of the victim when death occurs after some time. In these cases, for the correct qualification of the deed, it is necessary to establish the nature of the bodily injuries inflicted on the vital organs of the human body, when the perpetrator is aware of the incompatibility of the injuries inflicted by him with the life of the victim;

3) the deed is qualified as the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, which negligently caused the death of the victim, while the actual circumstances of the case indicate the presence of intent to cause death, and vice versa.

Thus, in order to correctly delimit these compositions from each other, first of all, it is necessary to correctly use the following axioms of the criminal process:

1)investigation of the circumstances of a criminal case must be comprehensive, objective and complete;

2)the judge, jurors, as well as the prosecutor, investigator, interrogating officer evaluate the evidence according to their inner conviction, based on the totality of evidence available in the criminal case, guided by the law and conscience;

)no evidence has a predetermined force.

So, the defendant Smirnov A.The. deliberately caused grievous bodily harm, dangerous to human life, negligently entailed the death of Sozinov N.N., and was convicted by the court under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The crime was committed by him in the Zaeltsovsky district of Novosibirsk under the following circumstances.

September 2010 at about 9 o'clock Smirnov A.V. and Sazonov N.N. were at house 2 on the street. Arensky, where a quarrel arose between Smirnov and Sazonov, during which Smirnov had a criminal intent to cause grievous harm to Sazonov's health. Realizing his criminal intent, Smirnov, acting deliberately, realizing the social danger of his actions, foreseeing the possibility of causing serious bodily harm to Sazonov and wanting to inflict it, but at the same time, not wanting to cause death, not foreseeing its occurrence, although with the necessary care and foresight he must was and could foresee the death of Sazonov, struck the latter at least two blows with his hand in a vital organ - the head. By his actions, Smirnov caused bodily injuries to Sazonov in the form of an abrasion in the frontal region on the right, a hemorrhage in the soft tissues of the head in the frontotemporal region on the right, a subdural hematoma on the right, and a bruise in the frontal and temporal lobes on the right. This bodily injury is life-threatening and is therefore regarded as a sign of serious bodily harm. Sazonov's death was caused by a severe craniocerebral injury in the form of a bruise, hemorrhages under the membranes and substance of the brain, complicated by edema, swelling of the brain with wedging into the foramen magnum.

A serious difficulty in law enforcement practice is also the distinction between the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in death (Part 4 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) from causing death by negligence (Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The latter takes place when a person does not foresee not only the possibility of causing death, but also grievous bodily harm, although he was obliged and could foresee the possibility of their occurrence.

If the perpetrator had no intent (direct or indirect) to cause grievous bodily harm and death to the victim, but due to the circumstances of the case, he should have and could foresee the consequences (the death of the victim), his actions are qualified as causing death by negligence, for example: the perpetrator pushed the victim, who, unable to stay on his feet, as he was in drunkenness, fell and hit his head on the curb, from the inflicted bodily injuries, the victim died.

Parts 2, 3 and 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contain lists of qualifying and especially qualifying features that give grounds to the legislator to increase the level of criminal liability for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. For the first time, the legislator considered the commission of this crime against a minor and based on political, ideological, racial, national hatred or hostility as qualifying signs. In the current socio-political situation in Russia, this qualifying feature is fully justified.

Particular attention should be paid to such a particularly qualifying feature as the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim. It is necessary to ensure a thorough study and understanding by investigators and judges of the criteria developed in the theory of criminal law and law enforcement practice for distinguishing murders from intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm that negligently caused the death of the victim.

The mistakes made in distinguishing these crimes from each other are largely due to the fact that, according to the signs of the objective side, they are exactly the same.

The distinction between murder and infliction of grievous bodily harm, which negligently caused the death of the victim, should be carried out on the subjective side.

There are also difficulties with delimiting the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm from causing death by negligence. The latter takes place when a person does not foresee not only the possibility of causing death, but also grievous bodily harm, although he was obliged and could foresee the possibility of their occurrence.

CONCLUSION

Analyzing the history of the institute for the development of criminal liability for causing grievous harm to human health, it can be noted that the crimes in question have come a long way in their development, starting from vague constructions and ending with stable generalized descriptions of the elements of crimes in the modern criminal legislation of our state.

It must be remembered that the main source of the formation of legislation is the analysis of the historical experience of lawmaking and the practice of applying the criminal law. The analysis of historical experience and the practice of applying the criminal law fully justify the inclusion in the number of signs of the analyzed crime and the infliction of bodily harm dangerous to the life of the victim. This would meet both the general requirements of legislative technique and the style of presentation of normative material. In grave and especially grave crimes, the concepts used to describe the signs of these acts must be formally defined, i.e. identical to their content, have high information content and semantic rigidity, which, in turn, excludes vague wording, deviation of the meaning of a legal term from the commonly used one.

The legislator in the current Criminal Code abandoned the concept of "bodily injury", and used another concept of "deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm dangerous to human life." But the term "injury" does not lose its meaning, moreover, it is possible that it can be used again in the legislation, as evidenced by judicial practice. Moreover, many textbooks on criminal law, comments on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which in recent years have been published in large numbers by different teams, give reason to assert that the term "bodily injury" has remained in the theory of criminal law.

Deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm is the most dangerous crime among the crimes against health. The law classifies it as a serious crime, and in the presence of especially aggravating circumstances - especially serious crimes. The increased social danger of this crime lies in the severity of the act itself, the consequences that have occurred, and, finally, in the prevalence of such acts.

The only correct thing is to recognize as the object of the crime in question, the safety of life in the biological sense and health in the sense of a certain physical state of the body, creating the necessary prerequisite for full participation in social relations, providing the opportunity to live and enjoy health, the benefits of life.

The most important element of the corpus delicti, namely the objective side, is a criminal act, since only a criminal act gives rise to the subsequent links of the objective side: a causal relationship and a criminal result. The actions of the perpetrator are expressed in the mechanical, physical, chemical and mental impact on the victim. Serious harm to human health can also be caused by inaction, if the perpetrator does not perform certain actions that he should have and could have performed in relation to another person, which entails harm to his health. Mandatory signs of the objective side are the onset of a criminal consequence, expressed in the infliction of grievous bodily harm, the signs of which are exhaustively listed in the disposition of the article under consideration.

As for the causal relationship between a socially dangerous act and the ensuing consequences, it can be said that in the investigation of criminal cases, in this case about the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, in which it is necessary to resolve the issue of the responsibility of a particular person or persons for the resulting harm to health , it is necessary to identify an objectively existing causal relationship between criminal acts and the consequences that have occurred. After the existence of a causal relationship is proved, it is necessary to resolve the issue of the nature of the guilt of each of the accused (if the crime is committed by a group of persons) in relation to the resulting harm to health. Only such analytical work ensures the correct classification of crimes.

Crime, like any human act, is the result of the interaction of individual personality traits and an objective (external to the individual) situation in which a person makes a specific behavioral decision.

Each individual crime is determined, on the one hand, by the personal characteristics of a given individual - his needs, interests, motives, goals, and, ultimately, views and attitudes towards various social values ​​and institutions, including legal prescriptions and prohibitions; on the other hand, it is a set of external objective circumstances that, interacting with personal circumstances, cause the intention and determination to commit an intentional crime.

Parts 2, 3 and 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contain lists of qualifying and especially qualifying features that give grounds to the legislator to increase the level of criminal liability for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. For the first time, the legislator considered the commission of this crime against a minor and based on political, ideological, racial, national hatred or hostility as qualifying signs. In the current socio-political situation in Russia, this qualifying feature is fully justified.

Particular attention should be paid to such a particularly qualifying feature as the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim. It is necessary to ensure a thorough study and understanding by investigators and judges of the criteria developed in the theory of criminal law and law enforcement practice for distinguishing murders from intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm that negligently caused the death of the victim.

The mistakes made in distinguishing these crimes from each other are largely due to the fact that, according to the signs of the objective side, they are exactly the same.

The distinction between murder and infliction of grievous bodily harm, which negligently caused the death of the victim, should be carried out on the subjective side.

There are also difficulties with delimiting the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm from causing death by negligence. The latter takes place when a person does not foresee not only the possibility of causing death, but also grievous bodily harm, although he was obliged and could foresee the possibility of their occurrence.

Having studied judicial practice, it should be noted that when sentencing for a crime under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to prohibit the use of probation at the state level, due to the fact that perceived as “impunity” of convicted persons for committing intentional grievous bodily harm contributes to the repetition of similar crimes against human life and health.

In my opinion, it is necessary to make some changes in Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, namely:

-in order to strengthen the criminal law protection of the health of the individual, in addition to those already provided for in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is proposed to consider as a deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm associated with banditry, committed under aggravating circumstances;

-it is necessary to introduce the definition of a special subject for the qualifications of actions under paragraph “g” of Part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, when serious harm to health is inflicted in order to use the organs or tissues of the victim.

LIST OF USED SOURCES

Regulations

The Constitution of the Russian Federation: with the anthem of Russia: adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993: taking into account the Laws on changing the term of office of the President of the Russian Federation and the State Duma and on the control powers of the State Duma in relation to the Government of the Russian Federation. - M.: Prospekt, 2010. - 30 p.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: adopted by the State Duma on May 24, 1996, approved by the Federation Council on June 5, 1996, signed by the President on June 13, 1996, entered into force on January 1, 1997. - M., 2010. - 159 p.

Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 27, 1999 "On judicial practice in cases of murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)" // Russian newspaper. - 1999. - February 09.

Scientific literature

4. Abeltsev S.N. Self-interest and violence of grave crimes against the person: Diss ... candidate of legal sciences. - M., 1997. - 178 p.

5. Adelkhanyan R.A. Infliction of grievous bodily harm under especially aggravating circumstances (criminal - legal and criminological research). - M., 2004. - 253 p.

Bazarov R.A. Criminal - legal characteristics of violence // Proceedings of the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. - M., 1995. - S. 32 - 41.

Bobushev S.R. Development of criminal liability for causing grievous bodily harm under the criminal legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation. Problems to the solution of lawmaking and law enforcement // Collection scientific papers adjuncts and applicants. - Omsk, 2008. - No. 15. - S. 23 - 25.

Bobushev S.R. The object of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm according to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic // Materials of the scientific conference of adjuncts and applicants. - Omsk, 2007. - No. 3. - S. 57 - 60.

Borzenkov G.S. Problems of qualifying crimes against life and health, committed out of hooligan motives // Legitimacy. - M., 2008. - No. 5. - S. 25 - 30.

Borodin S.V. The course of Russian criminal law: a special part. - M.: Spark, 2005. - 1039 p.

Vardanyan A.V. Victimological aspect of the victim's personality in the structure of forensically significant signs of serious crimes against human life and health // Philosophy of Law. - Rostov n / D., 2010. - No. 6. - S. 25 - 28.

Gerasimova E.E. Delimitation of the elements of murder (part 1, article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) from the elements of inflicting grievous bodily harm that negligently caused the death of the victim (part 4 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): errors in the practical activities of the investigating authorities and the court // Norma. Law. Legislation. Right. Abstracts of interuniversity scientific-practical conference. Part 2. - Perm, 2006. - S. 72 - 74.

Gorelik I. Qualification of crimes dangerous for life and health. - Minsk, 1973. - 318 p.

Dubovets P.A. Responsibility for bodily injuries under Soviet criminal law: Author's abstract ... candidate of legal sciences. - M., 1962. - 22 p.

Dubovets P.A. Liability for bodily injury under Soviet criminal law. - M., 1964. - 159 p.

Zagorodnikov N.N., Ignatov A.N. Crimes against the person. - M., 1962. - 64 p.

Zagorodnikov N.N. Crimes against health. - M.: Yurid. lit., 1969. - 166 p.

Zatelepin O. To the question of the concept of an object in criminal law. // Criminal law. - 2003. - No. 1. - S. 29 - 32.

Ivanova N.V. Violence against a person in criminal law (problems of theory). - Cheboksary, 2006. - 120 p.

Koltsov M.I. Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, criminal law and criminological problems // Collection of scientific papers. - Saratov, 2009. - S. 265 - 268.

Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation / Otv. edited by A.I. Rarog. - M.: Prospekt, 2007. - 639 p.

Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with article-by-article materials and judicial practice. - Rostov n / D .: March Publishing Center, 2005. - 864 p.

Krasikov A.N. Crimes against the person. - Saratov, 2003. - 314 p.

The course of criminal law: Special part: in 4 volumes. Vol. 3 / under. ed. G.N. Borzenkova, V.S. Komissarov. - M.: Zertsalo, 2004. - 468 p.

Lebedev V.M., Skuratov Yu.I. Commentary on the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. - M.: Publishing house NORMA, 2001. - 896 p.

Lopukhov M.P. controversial issues establishing a causal relationship in cases of crimes against life and health // Collection of scientific articles based on the materials of the interuniversity scientific and practical conference. - Saratov, 2009. - S. 129 - 131.

Milyukov S.V. Russian Criminal Legislation: An Experience of Critical Analysis. - St. Petersburg, 2000. - 280 p.

Nafiev S.Kh., Mukhamedzyanov I.A. Crime qualification. - Kazan, 1999. - 104 p.

Oganov A.A. Current state and measures to combat crimes related to the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm // Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. - M., 2009. - No. 5. - S. 141 - 145.

Oganov A.A. Using the results of operational-search activities in criminal proceedings for the crime: "Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm" // Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. - M., 2009. - No. 8. - S. 123 - 128.

Rastoropov S.V. Criminal law on liability for causing harm to human health. Comparative analysis Codes on punishments of criminal and correctional 1845 and the Criminal Code of 1903 // Law and Law. - M., 2004. - No. 8. - S. 68 - 72.

Rastoropov SV Object of crime against human health. // Criminal law. - 2005. - No. 1. - S. 43 - 45.

Rastoropov S. V. Objective and subjective signs in general concept composition of crimes against health // Criminal law. - 2005. - No. 4. - S. 59 - 61.

Rastoropov S. V. The concept of a crime against human health. // Criminal law. - 2005. - No. 3. - S. 65 - 67.

Rastoropov S.V. The concept and system of crimes against health under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996 // Criminal Law. - 2005. - No. 4. - S. 37 - 39.

Rastoropov S. V. System of crimes against human health // Legality. - 2005. - No. 10. - S. 46 - 50.

Rastoropov SV The content of the subjective side of crimes against human health. // Legality. - 2005. - No. 2. - S. 56 - 57.

Tishchenko E.V. Criminal - legal and criminological characteristics of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm: Author's abstract ... diss.cand.of legal sciences. - Rostov n / D., 2001. - 24 p.

40. Turned M.D. Murder and infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim: problems of demarcation // Bulletin of the Volga University. V.N. Tatishchev. - Togliatti, 2008. - No. 69. - S. 80 - 82.

41. Shargorodsky M.D. Selected works on criminal law. - St. Petersburg: Yur. Center Press, 2005. - 434 p.

Practice Materials

42. Case No. 1-157 / 2008 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2008.

43. Case No. 1-325/2009 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2009.

Case No. 1-329/2009 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2009.

Case No. 1-167/2008 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2008.

Case No. 1-131/2008 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District, Novosibirsk, 2008.

Case No. 1-166/2008 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky city of Novosibirsk, 2008.

Case No. 1-611-2010 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2010.

Case No. 1-150-2008 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2008.

Case No. 1-78-2008 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2008.

Case No. 1-262-2009 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2009.

Case No. 1-287-2009 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2009.

Case No. 1-594-2009 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2009.

Case No. 1-414-2009 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2009.

Case No. 1-322-2009 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2009

Case No. 1-593-2009 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2009.

Case No. 1-106-2008 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2008.

Case No. 1-147-2008 // Archive of the Federal Court of General Jurisdiction of the Zaeltsovsky District of Novosibirsk, 2008.

Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm (Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

Teplyashina O. V. The history of the development of the Russian criminal legislation on liability for the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm in connection with the performance of official activities by a person or the fulfillment of public duty // Russian ...

The concept and types of harm to health. Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm (Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Its delimitation from attempted murder and causing death by negligence (Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Resolution of the pr-va "on the approval of the rules for determining the severity of harm":

harm to human health is understood as a violation of the anatomical integrity and physiological function of human organs and tissues as a result of exposure to physical, chemical, biological and mental environmental factors. Harm depends on the degree of its severity and is established in accordance with the medical criteria for its definition.

The 1960 code used the concept of "bodily injury" rather than harm to health. Correctly replaced. Not every harm to health can be regarded as bodily harm.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Rules know three types of harm: heavy, medium and light.

To establish the severity of harm caused to human health, it is necessary to conduct a forensic medical examination. At the same time, medical criteria for determining the severity of harm to health must be approved by the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation.

Harm has a qualitative characteristic, it is determined by the form of pathology caused to the body. Three forms of pathology: bodily injuries (violate the anatomical integrity), diseases (manifested in the form of physiological functions of human organs and tissues, drug addiction, taxi addiction, mental disorder), pathological condition (expressed in violation of the physiological functions of organs and tissues human shock, coma, cardiac and renal failure).

The quantitative character is determined by the amount of harm caused, enshrined in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Signs of harm are enshrined in Articles 111, 112.115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When delimiting, the following criteria were taken into account: 1. Medical. They are divided into anatomical - takes into account the nature of the bodily injury, its danger to life. Clinical signs take into account the duration of the health disorder, as well as the onset of certain consequences (loss of vision, speech, hearing, etc.)

The second criterion in terms of severity is socio-economic criteria. There are also 2 of them: the size of the permanent loss of general ability to work and the complete loss of professional ability to work.

The third criterion is aesthetic. It manifests itself in taking into account the indelible disfigurement of the face as a constructive feature of Article 111 of the Criminal Code.

To serious health hazards are:

a) life-threatening harm. As such, harm to health is recognized that causes a life-threatening condition that can end in death; they can be both bodily injuries and diseases and pathological conditions (penetrating wounds of the skull and spine, second-degree burns exceeding 30% of the surface, coma, massive blood loss, etc.);

b) non-life-threatening types of harm related to grievous harm according to the consequences:

Under vision loss is understood as complete permanent blindness in both eyes or such a condition when there is a decrease in vision to visual acuity of 0.04 or lower (finger count at a distance of 2 m and to light perception). hearing loss - complete deafness or such an irreversible condition when the victim does not hear spoken language at a distance of 3-5 cm from the auricle. Loss of vision in one eye and hearing loss in one ear is a loss of the organ of its functions and, on this basis, is already classified as serious harm health. The loss of one eyeball is considered the loss of an organ, and the loss of a blind eye is qualified on the basis of the duration of the disorder. When determining the severity of harm, the possibility of improving vision or hearing with the help of medical and technical means (corrective glasses, hearing aids, etc.) is not taken into account.

Under loss of speech refers to the loss of the ability to express one's thoughts in articulate sounds understandable to others, or as a result of loss of voice.

Organ loss or the loss of functions is also recognized: an organ is a part of the human body that performs a certain function in the body that is essential for life in general.

a) loss of an arm, leg, i.e. separating them from the body or losing their functions (for example, as a result of paralysis). The loss of the most functionally important part of the limb (hand, foot) is equated to the loss of an arm or leg. Such a loss is regarded as grievous harm, and in view of the fact that it entails a permanent loss of ability to work by one third;

b) damage to the genital organs, accompanied by a loss of productive capacity, i.e. ability to copulate, fertilize, conceive and procreate.

B) loss of one testicle

Abortion , regardless of its term, if it is causally determined by the behavior of the perpetrator, and not by the individual characteristics of the victim's body or her diseases. It is also important to establish that the perpetrator, inflicting injuries, was aware of the pregnant state of the victim.

Mental disorder , drug addiction or drug addiction . The assessment of the severity of harm to health in these cases is carried out by a forensic medical expert

permanent disfigurement of the face - the type of grievous harm, allocated according to the aesthetic criterion. The question of the effaceability of the damage is decided by the expert. It should be understood as the possibility of the disappearance of the visible consequences of damage or a significant decrease in their severity (i.e., the visibility of scars, deformities, facial expressions, etc.) over time or under the influence of non-surgical means. The question of disfigurement is a legal, evaluative one. It is decided by the court (investigating authorities) on the basis of generally accepted aesthetic ideas, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. Disfigurement- this is a sharp change in the natural appearance of a person's face as a result of exposure external causes. At the same time, the conclusion about the indelibility of damage is substantiated.

Conditional anatomical boundaries of the face area: upper - the edge of the scalp is normal; lateral - the anterior edge of the base of the auricle, the posterior edge of the lower jaw branch; lower - the angle and lower edge of the body of the lower jaw. In the production of a forensic medical examination, the boundaries of the facial area include the auricles.

Professional work capacity there is a person’s ability to perform a certain amount and quality of work in a particular profession (pianist, carpenter, surgeon, etc.). Complete loss is established in cases where the victim, due to pronounced violations of body functions, has absolute medical contraindications (for example, lack of hearing ) to perform any kind of professional activity, even in specially created conditions. To impute this type of harm to health, it is required to establish knowledge, i.e. the perpetrator, causing harm to the health of the victim, knew that this harm could lead to a complete loss of professional ability to work (for example, damage to a pianist's hand).

+ significant permanent loss of general ability to work by at least one third. = 30%. - Order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development. A permanent loss should be considered either with a definite outcome, or with a duration of health disorder over 120 days.

An object - the health of the victim as a mental state of a person, in part 4. in addition - life.

objective side the form of action or inaction, the consequences in the form of serious harm to health and the causal relationship between them. The act itself may consist of a physical, toxic, mechanical effect on the body or an informational effect on the psyche of the victim, as well as the inaction of a person who should have and could take active actions to prevent serious harm to health.

In a situation where, in the process of beating or other violent actions, the perpetrator is harmed to health of varying severity, qualification, taking into account guilt, is carried out according to the most serious consequence. If two or more damages that have signs of grievous harm were inflicted on one victim within a short time, for a single motive and were covered by a single intent, the deed is assessed as a single continued crime - causing grievous harm to the victim by a combination of committed guilty actions - and does not form an aggregate.

Subjective side guilt in the form of direct or indirect intent. For some types of infliction of grievous bodily harm (for example, qualified on the basis of a complete loss of professional ability to work), the establishment of direct intent is required. Within the meaning of the law for qualification under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish the intent to cause not any, namely, grievous bodily harm.

Subject a natural sane person who has reached the age of 14.

The qualifying signs of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm (parts 2, 3 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) coincide with similar signs of murder under part 2 of art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. LIST QUALIFYING FEATURES FROM ST 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, negligently resulting in the death of the victim (part 4 of article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). An additional object of this crime should be recognized as social relations that ensure the safety of human life.

On the objective side, depending on the characteristics of serious harm to health, two options are possible:

a) infliction of serious bodily harm, dangerous to life, and the onset of consequences in the form of death;

b) infliction of harm to health, not dangerous to life, the onset of at least one "primary" consequence, specified in the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the onset of a "secondary" consequence in the form of death.

It is fundamentally important to establish that the death of the victim occurred precisely as a result of the actions of the perpetrator.

FROM subjective side with two forms of guilt: intent (direct or indirect) in relation to causing grievous bodily harm and negligence in relation to causing death.

RESTRICTIONS:

FROM ATTEMPT TO MURDER

Intentional infliction of life-threatening harm to health must be distinguished from attempted murder. The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained to the courts that attempted murder is possible only with direct intent. It follows from this that the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm dangerous to life, when the perpetrator was aware of the possibility of causing death to the victim and allowed its onset, i.e. acted with indirect intent, subject to qualification on the consequences of Part.1 Article.111 of the Criminal Code.

FROM CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE

In contrast to the careless infliction of death, a crime under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, involves the perpetrator of intentional actions aimed at causing harm to health. Only in this situation, the subsequent occurrence of death, provided there is a causal relationship with the actions of the perpetrator and his negligent guilt in relation to this result, can be considered as a qualified form of infliction of grievous bodily harm. If the perpetrator did not have the intent to cause grievous bodily harm (which may be evidenced by the actual circumstances of the case), but as a result of his careless actions the death of the victim occurred, the deed must be qualified under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Article 111 three compositions of intentional infliction of harm to health, and part

Crimes against life are different from health (the difference is in intent. In the first case, life, and in the second, health, and death is not intent) Harm to health dangerous to life at the time of its infliction. Life-threatening injuries are those that pose a threat to the life of the victim and can lead to the death of the patient without medical intervention. Life-threatening harm may include those that cause the development of diseases that threaten the patient's life (closure of fractures, brain contusion, etc.).

Part 2 of article 111 qualified composition. Qualifying signs: points a, b, c, d, f, g ... (7 points).

Organized group they are all directly involved in the crime. Causing two or more victims.

Two forms of guilt. Intentional in relation to the actions taken. Serious bodily harm must be caused, if there is death, and there is no serious harm, then this is not part 111 part 4, but negligent murder, art 109. If death occurs for reasons not related to the harm caused, this is not art 111 part 4, for example, c actions of doctors.

COMPOUND- material.

1) Under the object causing harm to health of any severity refers to the health of another person.

The object of criminal law protection is the health of any person, regardless of the actual state of health. The health of the child may be the object of encroachment already in the process of childbirth.

· The consent of the victim to the infliction of harm to his health, as a rule, does not relieve the perpetrator from liability, with the exception of the removal of organs or tissues for transplantation, which is specially regulated by law.

Causing harm to the health of the participant sports competitions can not be considered illegal if the mandatory rules established for this sport have been observed.

2) the objective side causing harm to health is any action or inaction that meets the criteria established in Art. 111 - 118 of the Criminal Code, and entailed the consequences indicated there. Any method of action is possible, except for those cases when it has a qualifying value (parts 2 and 3 of article 111, part 2 of article 112 of the Criminal Code) or is a constitutive sign of a crime (article 117 of the Criminal Code).

3) Subjective side crimes under Art. 111, is characterized by direct intent.

· For intentional harm to health, the most typical is unspecified intent, when the perpetrator foresees and wishes or deliberately allows harm to the health of another person, but does not specifically represent the amount of this harm and is often unable to specify the severity of the harm caused to health. The qualification of the deed with unspecified intent is determined depending on the actual consequences, since the intent of the perpetrator covered the infliction of any harm to health.

· In the case of direct, specific intent, liability should arise for the harm to health that was covered by the intent of the perpetrator. If at the same time less serious harm was actually caused or no harm to health was caused at all, then the perpetrator is responsible for the attempted infliction of the harm to health that he wished to inflict.

· The goals and motives of the intentional infliction of harm to health are important for the qualification of the deed, when the law associates with them an increase in responsibility (part 2 of article 111).

13. Subject causing harm to health - a physical sane person who has reached the age of 14 (Article 111).

The difference between the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, which negligently caused the death of the victim, from murder.

The difference between murder and infliction of grievous bodily harm, which negligently caused death, is that in the 1st case the intent of the perpetrator is aimed at depriving the victim of life and in the 2nd case at causing bodily harm, and not at causing death ( different objects encroachment), i.e. the attitude of the perpetrator to death in this case is expressed in criminal negligence.

Crimes against health in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The criterion of a long-term health disorder and a significant permanent loss of general ability to work in determining the severity of harm to health. Criminal liability for intentional infliction of moderate harm to health. Objective and subjective signs of deliberate infliction of moderate harm to health.

All components of a crime against health are chapter 16. Part of the articles of chapter 16 are crimes that threaten health, and some are only against health.

AGAINST HEALTH:

Intentional crimes

encroaching on the health of their 6 and 14 compositions

14. intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm (Article 111 part 1-3)

entailed by negligence the death of the victim (Article 111 part 4)

15. Intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm (Art. 112)

16. causing severe or moderate bodily harm in a state of passion (Article 113)

17. Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm committed in excess of the limits of necessary defense (Part 1, Article 114)

18. Intentional infliction of severe or moderate bodily harm committed in excess of the measures necessary to detain a person who committed a crime (part 2 of article 114)

19. intentional infliction of minor bodily harm (art. 115)

Careless crimes. Crimes against health.

5. Causing grievous harm through negligence (Article 118)

6. - failure to provide assistance to the patient (Article 124).

Significant permanent disability

not less than one third (permanent loss of total working capacity over 30 percent).

Serious harm to health, causing a significant permanent loss of general ability to work by at least one third, regardless of the outcome and the provision (non-provision) of medical care, includes the following injuries:

6.11.1. open or closed fracture of the humerus: intraarticular (shoulder head) or periarticular (anatomical neck, sub- and transtubercular), or surgical neck or shaft of the humerus;

6.11.2. open or closed fracture of the bones that make up the elbow joint;

6.11.3. open or closed fracture-dislocation of the bones of the forearm: fracture of the ulna in the upper or middle third with dislocation of the head of the radius (Monteggia fracture-dislocation) or fracture of the radius in the lower third with dislocation of the head of the ulna (fracture-dislocation of Galeazzi);

6.11.4. open or closed fracture of the acetabulum with displacement;

6.11.5. open or closed fracture of the proximal femur: intra-articular (fracture of the head and neck of the femur) or extra-articular (intertrochanteric, pertrochanteric fractures), with the exception of an isolated fracture of the greater and lesser trochanters;

6.11.6. open or closed fracture of the diaphysis of the femur;

6.11.7. open or closed fracture of the bones that make up the knee joint, with the exception of the patella;

6.11.8. open or closed fracture of the diaphysis of the tibia;

6.11.9. open or closed fracture of the ankles of both tibias in combination with a fracture of the articular surface of the tibia and a rupture of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis with subluxation and dislocation of the foot;

6.11.10. compression fracture of two or more adjacent vertebrae of the thoracic or lumbar spine without dysfunction spinal cord and pelvic organs;

6.11.11. open dislocation of the shoulder or forearm, or hand, or thigh, or lower leg, or foot with rupture of the ligamentous apparatus and joint capsule.

Persistent loss of general ability to work and in other cases it is determined in percentage multiples of five, in accordance with the Percentage Table of Persistent Loss of General Ability to Work as a Result of Various Injuries, Poisoning and Other Consequences of External Causes attached to these Medical Criteria.

Article 112. Deliberate infliction of moderate harm to health

Intentional infliction of harm to health of medium gravity that is not dangerous to human life and does not entail the consequences specified in Article 111 of this Code, but which caused a long-term health disorder or a significant permanent loss of general ability to work by less than one third, -