ST 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. A sane person who, at the time of committing a crime due to a mental disorder, could not fully understand the actual nature and social danger of his actions (inaction) or control them, is subject to criminal liability.
2. A mental disorder that does not preclude sanity is taken into account by the court when assigning punishment and can serve as a basis for imposing compulsory medical measures.
Commentary to Art. 22 of the Criminal Code
1. The concept of limited sanity is associated with situations where a mental disorder affects a person’s behavior, but is not so strong as to serve as a basis for a statement of insanity. Impaired responsibility is not an intermediate state between insanity and sanity; This is sanity, and a person who commits a crime in a state of limited sanity is subject to criminal liability and punishment.
2. The medical criterion of limited sanity presupposes the presence of a mental disorder in a person.
The legal criterion (as in insanity) is related to the fact that the disease affects the person’s behavior, i.e. due to an existing illness, a person cannot fully understand the actual nature and social danger of his actions (inaction) (intellectual version of the criterion) or alternatively manage them (volitional version of the criterion).
The temporal criterion of limited sanity is contained in the words “at the time of the commission of the crime.”
3. The legal consequences of limited sanity are provided for in Part 2 of the article. The reference to the court taking it into account when imposing a punishment should be understood as an obligation to mitigate the punishment of a person who committed a crime in a state of limited sanity on the basis of Part 2 of Art. 61 CC.
The only corpus delicti in the Special Part of the Criminal Code, which provides for limited sanity as a constructive feature, is contained in Art. 106 of the Criminal Code (in this case, Part 2 of Article 22 of the Criminal Code is not applicable on the basis of Part 3 of Article 61 of the Criminal Code).
Commentary on Article 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The criminal legislation of some foreign countries uses the category of diminished responsibility. In domestic criminal law, the category of diminished sanity has so far been rejected, but this article establishes the concept of a person with a mental disorder that does not exclude sanity. The need to introduce into criminal legislation the category of a person with a mental disorder that does not exclude sanity is due to the fact that many persons who commit crimes suffer from one or another mental disorder that affects their unlawful behavior, but does not exclude their sanity.
2. A sane person who, at the time of committing a crime due to a mental disorder, could not fully understand the actual nature and social danger of his actions (inaction) or control them, is subject to criminal justice.
3. A mental disorder that does not preclude sanity is taken into account by the court when assigning punishment and can serve as a basis for imposing compulsory medical measures.
Second commentary to Art. 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Article 22 of the Criminal Code reflects the meaning of sanity as a sign that determines the positive property of the subject of a crime. In modern criminal law doctrine, these legislative provisions are associated with the doctrinal concept of “limited (reduced) sanity.” Diminished sanity is interpreted as a limited (reduced) mental ability of a sane person to realize the actual nature of his behavior and its social danger.
2. Signs of diminished responsibility are determined in accordance with medical and legal criteria. The medical criterion of diminished sanity is the presence of a mental disorder without signs of mental illness or other painful condition specified in Part 1 of Art. 21 CC. The legal criterion of diminished sanity is the inability of a person to fully understand the actual nature and social danger of his actions in the circumstances of the commission of a crime.
3. The criminal legal significance of diminished sanity is the individualization of criminal liability, which follows from the meaning of Part 2 of Art. 22 of the Criminal Code: a mental disorder that does not preclude sanity is taken into account by the court when assigning punishment and can serve as a basis for imposing compulsory medical measures.
Article 22. Criminal liability of persons with a mental disorder that does not exclude sanity
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 14, 2018 N 66-APU18-13 When appointing Bazankov M.S. punishment court in accordance with Part 2 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation took into account the presence of signs of a personality disorder of organic etiology, which do not exclude sanity, positive characteristics about him from his place of work and service in the army, circumstances aggravating and mitigating responsibility.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 2018 N 53-o18-1
When assigning punishment to convicted persons, the court in accordance with Part 2 of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation took into account the presence of Polyakov’s mental disorder, which does not exclude sanity. The Judicial Panel finds the arguments of the cassation submission that the court did not have the right to recognize the commission of a crime (robbery) as part of a group of persons as a circumstance aggravating the punishment of the convicted person to be unfounded for the following reasons.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2018 N 53-APU18-7
He asks to cancel the verdict, conduct a re-examination, apply Art. Art. , , , and part 3 art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reclassify his actions in relation to A. under Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and actions against B. are excluded from the sentence.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 28, 2018 N 46-UD18-37
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. , clause “c”, part 1, art. , part 2 art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to A.A. Kulikov forced outpatient observation and treatment by a psychiatrist were prescribed. The verdict was not appealed.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 20, 2018 N 19-APU18-16SP
The punishment for N.P. Medvedev, contrary to the arguments stated in the lawyer’s complaint and in the speech of the convicted person during the appeal hearing of the case, was imposed taking into account the requirements of Art. Art. , , the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, data about his personality, mitigating circumstances, including those pointed out by the lawyer and the convicted person, in particular the health status of N.P. Medvedev, the presence of an organic personality disorder in him connections with mixed diseases, admission of guilt and repentance for what they did. The court did not establish the illegality or immorality of the victim’s behavior, which was the reason for the crime; such data is also not contained in the case materials.
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 09, 2018 N 67-O18-2
The sanction of Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 15 years, therefore, for attempted murder, the amount of punishment in the presence of only one circumstance provided for in paragraph “i” of Part 1 of Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation cannot exceed 7 years 6 months deprivation of liberty, in connection with which, the publication of a criminal law with retroactive force provides grounds for mitigating the punishment assigned to A.O. Sukhachevsky. punishments. In addition, when determining the amount of the punishment, the Judicial Panel takes into account that the court of first instance, when imposing the punishment, also took into account Sukhachevsky’s young age and the provisions of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 11, 2018 N 53-APU18-10
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. , item “c” part 1, 2 art. , part 2 art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to Novikov Yu.A. a compulsory medical measure was prescribed in the form of compulsory observation and treatment by a psychiatrist on an outpatient basis.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 28, 2019 N 208-APU19-3
According to the conclusion of the commission of experts who conducted the investigation against Levitsky Y.V. inpatient comprehensive psychological and psychiatric examination, from Levitsky Y.V. there is a mental disorder in the form of mixed personality disorder. During the period relating to the act accused of him, committed in a state of the specified mental disorder, which does not exclude sanity, Levitsky Y.V. could not fully understand the actual nature and social danger of his actions and direct them (Article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Currently, he may be aware of the actual nature and social danger of his actions and direct them, he may correctly perceive the circumstances that are important for the criminal case, but he needs to apply compulsory medical measures in the form of compulsory observation and treatment by a psychiatrist on an outpatient basis.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 13, 2019 N 5-APU19-43
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. , part 2 art. , part 1 art. 104 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to Vasilyev E.N. a compulsory medical measure was prescribed in the form of compulsory observation and treatment by a psychiatrist on an outpatient basis at the place where the sentence of imprisonment was served.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 2, 2019 N 5-APU19-48
In accordance with Art. , clause “c”, part 1, art. , part 2 art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to M.A. Bakhulov a compulsory measure of a medical nature was prescribed - outpatient compulsory observation and treatment by a psychiatrist at the place of serving the sentence. Having heard the report of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation E.B. Erdyniev, the speech of the convicted Bakhulov M.A., lawyer Shaldirov Yu.Yu. according to the arguments of the appeal, the speech of the prosecutor Abramova Z.L., who objected to the arguments of the complaint and considered it necessary to cancel the verdict in part, the Judicial Collegium
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 25, 2019 N 45-APU19-15
She asks to change the sentence, to exclude her conviction for the narcotic drug seized at the address: st. Zhukovsky, ..., due to her serious illness, apply Art. Art. and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, cancel the additional punishment in the form of a fine, attribute the procedural costs of paying for the services of a lawyer to the federal budget, and count the time of her detention in pre-trial detention center-5 as 1.5 days of imprisonment in a colony against the term of the sentence served.
Another commentary on Article 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. This article deals with criminal liability and punishment of persons who have committed a crime but suffer from mental abnormalities. Modern legislation in most foreign countries recognizes the concept of diminished responsibility. Russian legal science rightly notes that persons with mental retardation cannot be equated with mentally healthy persons in the field of criminal liability. Such disorders in the legal literature include psychopathy, residual effects of traumatic brain injuries, organic diseases of the central nervous system, mental retardation with mild debility, etc.
2. The provisions of this article allow us to state the following. The law does not recognize an intermediate state between sanity and insanity, and a person who, at the time of committing a crime, could not fully understand the actual nature and social danger of his actions (inaction) or control them, is recognized as sane and subject to criminal liability. The presence of mental abnormalities in the perpetrator, which do not exclude sanity, must be taken into account by the court when assigning punishment. At the same time, the wording of Art. 22 of the Criminal Code “taken into account by the court” does not mean mitigation or enhancement of punishment. In such cases, the court must be guided by the general list of types of punishments specified in Art. 44 of the Criminal Code. An individual approach in this case can only be expressed in the chosen measure of punishment, and in some cases it can serve as the basis for the use of compulsory medical measures, which can be applied by the court even in the case when the need to use these measures arises during the preliminary investigation (see: Determination of the Judicial Collegium of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated December 26, 1994 // BVS RF. 1995. No. 8. P. 8).
3. The medical criterion of diminished responsibility is established based on the conclusion of a psychiatric examination. After establishing a mental disorder in a sane person, the investigator and the court must find out the degree of influence of this disorder on his behavior when committing a crime, relying on the conclusion of a forensic psychiatric examination and on the case materials collected during the preliminary investigation and at the court hearing.
4. Only the court, taking into account the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric examination, has the right to recognize the person as less than sane and, taking into account this circumstance noted in the verdict, impose a punishment.
