Administrative Prejudice In Criminal Law

I mean the doctrinal points that are the concepts based on legal mentalities of these nations and reflected, first of all, in General Parts of their Criminal Codes. The issues of criminalization that is the process by which behaviors are transformed into crime as well as the issues of penalization that is the declaration of a behavior punishable by law often reflect a political background but not the basic concepts, underlying criminal law. And it makes no difference whether this or that rule is fixed in the text of a criminal legislative act or formulated by a criminal law expert. The only thing that matters is the fact that a rule exists. For example, the concept of a factual personal mistake that is when a person is misinterpreting his or

The analysis of the text offers the possibility to point out eight basic features which are not typical of the majority of civil law countries:

1) Criminal law is codified in one legislative act (the Criminal Code);

2) There is no concept of misdemeanor; criminal law is strictly distinguished from administrative law. It means that crime is strictly distinguished from other types of illegal behavior by the presence of a socially dangerous element;

3) There is no concept of administrative prejudice in criminal law due to the same strict distinction between criminal law and administrative law. Administrative prejudice in criminal law means that an illegal behavior is considered to be criminal when this behavior occurs within some time fixed by law after imposing an administrative sanction for the identical illegal behavior;

4) There is no corporate criminal liability;

5) Making preparations for committing a crime is seen as a stage of this crime; the ways by which committing a crime can be prepared are listed and fixed by law;

6) There are four types of conspirators in crime. They are principals, provokers, masterminds, and

By the time the Russian Criminal Code was adopted this way of codification was followed only in countries of the former Soviet Union (except Estonia) and in two more countries which had been influenced greatly by the Soviet Union – Mongolia and Vietnam.

If there is only one source of criminal law, it is not just a simple formality. This feature indirectly influences the content of criminal law. Anytime when a legislator amends a criminal law rule, he or she has to do it in such a way that does not ruin the integrity and coherence of the Criminal Code on the whole. Russian legislators have always been criticized for this rigidity. It makes one think that Russian legislators are unprofessional. It is never possible to uphold the quality of criminal law within a single legislative