Murder committed based on political, ideological, racial, national hatred and liability under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The punishment for committing murder can vary. One criminal receives only a few years in prison, while the other is sent to life imprisonment. Much depends on the method of committing the act. But criminal law assigns no less important importance to what the killer was guided by, his motives.

Murder motivated by political, ideological, racial, national hatred, as well as religious motives, is especially serious, and the punishment for it can even be life imprisonment.

Features of the composition

Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation defines murder as causing the death of another person and specifies two categories of crime:

• ordinary;
• committed under certain aggravating circumstances.

All special conditions are listed in the second part. Among them there are several aggravating motives, including hatred of an extremist nature (to race, religion, etc.). It is included in a separate paragraph “l”.

This point has a long history associated with the development of the fight against extremism, which began to be talked about especially a lot after the Second World War. After the tragic events of those years, international declarations and conventions were adopted establishing the need to guarantee all human rights and freedoms and protect them from any kind of discrimination.

When committing a murder of an extremist nature, two of the most important human rights are violated: to life, as well as to equality, regardless of one’s views, religion or social status. That is why the crime is included in a separate paragraph and has a severe punishment.

In order to be held accountable for committing such a murder, it is necessary to prove the presence of a motive. It is necessary to exclude the possibility of the existence of ordinary personal hostility towards the victim. To do this, it is established:

• the period during which the victim and the killer knew each other, how long they communicated;
• the presence or absence of conflicts that arose for another reason and were not related to religious, racial or other hostility.

Since the act has a clear motive, there is also intent to commit a crime. It can be direct and indirect. In the first case, a person is aware of the nature of his actions, anticipates the consequences and wants them to occur. In the second case, there is no desire, but the killer realizes and foresees that his actions can take the life of the victim.

Interesting! A clear example of indirect intent in a murder for extremist reasons would be the arson of a church. The offender is not trying to kill the people inside, but is aware that they may die.

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (PPVS) dated June 28, 2011 No. 11 “On judicial practice in criminal cases of extremist crimes” notes one important feature of the qualification of such a murder. If the crime has a motive specified in paragraph “l” of Part 2 of Art. 105, then only he is taken into account, other reasons that motivated the killer are excluded.

Download for viewing and printing:

Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Murder”

Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity”

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2011 No. 11 “On judicial practice in criminal cases involving extremist crimes”

Crimes qualified by the presence of extremist motives

The category of extremism from the point of view of its ideological content is reflected in the criminal law precisely through the concept of extremist motive, the commission of a crime based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or based on hatred or enmity against any social group.

So, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation distinguishes two varieties of this motive, the motive of hatred and the motive of enmity. In general, these motives of hatred or enmity imply persistent hostility and (or) intolerant attitude experienced by a person towards other citizens, their groups due to disagreement with their views and beliefs, principles, due to their belonging to one or another: political party or social movement, or due to the belonging of other persons (or groups of persons) to a certain race, nationality, confession, religious association or due to the absence of other persons of any religion. It is precisely this understanding of the motive of hatred and enmity that can be seen in the draft resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, dedicated to judicial practice in cases of extremist crimes (clause 3 of the draft).

In Russian language dictionaries, “hatred” is defined as “a feeling of strong enmity and disgust”, “disgust, disgust, malice, strong dislike, enmity, malicious intent”; “enmity” as “relations and actions imbued with hostility, hatred”, “hostility, disagreement, malice.” Thus, hatred and enmity are considered as identical and interchangeable concepts, but it seems to us that for the purposes of criminal law they must be distinguished. In accordance with the understanding of hatred and enmity established in the science of criminal law, the latter represents external practical (conflict, destructive) actions, while the former represents the basis of enmity without specific actions. [1, p. 34]

In this case, a specific criminal manifestation of hatred or enmity may be preceded by a protracted open conflict between the perpetrator and the injured party (both the given victim and the social, national, religious group to which he belongs), however, it is not excluded that a specific crime became the first manifestation of the motive of hatred or enmity. [2, p. 9]

The criminal law allows for five types of motives for hatred or enmity: political, ideological, racial, national, religious hatred or enmity, as well as a motive for hatred or enmity towards any social group. It should be noted that these varieties not only have partially overlapping content, but are also often combined in practice, and this requires their correct definition.

Political hatred (enmity) is associated with rejection of political views that are alien to the perpetrator on the conduct of state foreign or domestic policy and corresponding activities to implement these views in the form of participation in the work of a political party or public association, in elections and referendums as a voter (referendum participant) ) or a candidate, in the work of state authorities and local governments. Political hatred (enmity) is not necessarily associated with the active political activity of the victim; victims of a crime may turn out to be simple bearers of political views.

Political hatred (enmity) is, as a rule, personalized in nature, that is, a crime is committed against an individually identified person. In this regard, it is necessary to distinguish from paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Art. 105 and art. 277 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which presupposes a special motive and purpose for committing a crime and a special status of the victim. In our opinion, if the victim is a state or public figure, and the act is committed in order to stop his state or other political activities or out of revenge for such activities, then the act is qualified under Art. 277 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In case of murder for the specified motive (purpose) of relatives of a statesman or public figure, clause “b” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in relation to relatives of a statesman or public figure with a certain official position) or clause “l”, part 2 of art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (in relation to relatives of all government or public figures). [3, p. 886] The murder of a person who is not a state or public figure, or his relatives, but who occupies a certain official position, if there is a motive or purpose for the murder specified in the law, is qualified under paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Finally, in all other situations, clause “l” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Ideological hatred (enmity) partly includes political and social hatred (enmity), but it has a broader content, generally boiling down to rejection of a different system of views and ideas, worldview.

Ideological hatred (enmity) (as opposed to political hatred) is of a more abstract, non-personal nature, although criminal acts are committed, as a rule, against individually identified individuals.

One of the recent examples of qualifying a crime as committed based on ideological hatred and enmity is the case of the murder of lawyer M. and journalist B., in which the Kislovodsk City Court handed down a guilty verdict on May 6, 2011. T. and X. were found guilty, among other things, under paragraph “l” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The convicts committed the crime based on ideological hatred and enmity in connection with M.’s active participation in the anti-fascist movement and his professional activities to protect persons adhering to anti-fascist ideology. [3, p. 34]

Racial and national hatred (enmity) are associated with rejection of another race (Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid) or nationality, treating them as inferior in comparison with the race (nationality) of the perpetrator.

O. D. Sitkovskaya defines racial, national and religious hatred or enmity as “the personal attitude of a subject towards representatives of another race, nationality (ethnicity), religion (confession), the content of which is the rejection of the values ​​of the corresponding group as having the right to exist along with his own ; a negative assessment of the way of life, traditions, and customs of this group as alien to normal human communication or even inhumane, savage; confidence that the troubles and misfortunes of one’s own ethnic group or confession are caused by the machinations of this group and that it is currently hostile. This personal attitude is based on the formation and reinforcement of appropriate ethical stereotypes, the transfer of factual observations of individual representatives of an ethnic group or denomination to integrity and, conversely, the automatic transfer of speculation about the actions and intentions of this ethnic group or denomination to any of their representatives. This attitude comes from a sense of the superiority of the group to which the person belongs, and the inferiority of the ethnic groups and groups towards which hostility is directed.” [4, p.]

Religious hatred (enmity) is the rejection of persons of a different faith (religion), objects and objects associated with a different faith (religion) (religious buildings and structures, other places and objects specifically intended for worship, prayer and religious meetings, places of religious veneration ( pilgrimage); religious literature, printed, audio and video materials and other religious items). A type of such hatred (hostility) is the hatred (hostility) of a religious person towards an atheist and vice versa, since Russian legislation guarantees everyone the right not to profess any religion. It should be agreed with the approach of judicial practice that it is possible to impute the motive of religious hatred (enmity) in the event of a crime being committed against representatives of the same religion that the perpetrator professes, if the victims, as the perpetrator believes, “deviated” from religious dogmas, “ fell into heresy,” etc.

According to almost generally accepted opinion in the science of criminal law, the most difficult to determine is the motive of hatred or enmity towards any social group. A social group is an association of people who have a common significant social criterion (attribute) based on their social status, participation in some activity related to a system of relations that are regulated by formal or informal social institutions. Such a group must have a clear distinction in the structure of society according to a sign that is significant for society (for example, gender, sexual orientation, age, profession (journalists, military personnel, police officers, etc.), type of activity (human rights activists), property, official status, political, marital status, level of education, lifestyle, culture and language, place of residence or origin, as well as a combination of these characteristics). At the same time, such characteristics should not include those that give the group an asocial character (for example, participation in extremist and other prohibited organizations, criminal groups, etc.). Moreover, a person can simultaneously belong to several social groups depending on one or another aspect of his life.

The perpetrator, acting on the motive of hatred (hostility) towards a specific social group, must, therefore, experience hatred (hostility) towards a specific common socially significant feature of such a group.

The uncertainty of this motive, which has already been repeatedly noted in the literature, leads to strange examples offered in the science of criminal law when, for example, theft, based on the higher level of income of the victim, can be considered committed based on hostility towards a social group. [5, p.41]

We cannot agree with this kind of approach; the extremist motive, based on the understanding of extremism that was proposed in Chapter One of this study, presupposes the desire to harm a social group (its representatives), weaken or destroy it.

The establishment of a corresponding type of motive of hatred (enmity) in a person’s actions presupposes that the motivation formed on the basis of hatred or enmity caused the person’s determination to commit a crime and manifested itself in it. Hatred or enmity, thus, arises before the commission of a crime, becomes its cause, then manifests itself outwardly in the actual commission of a crime, becoming the main, dominant motive in such a crime. Accordingly, qualification based on the motive of hatred or enmity is possible only in the case where hatred or enmity was the dominant motive of the crime, and was not externally present in the crime committed on the basis of personal hostility or hooligan motives. For example, a domestic conflict that arose between neighbors, during which one called the other a “chock” or another offensive statement, cannot be considered as arising from national hatred. In such cases, complicated by the apparent presence of several motives, it is necessary to establish the one that became the real and true incentive to commit the crime, the qualification in this case.

In this regard, the determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the case of B., convicted under paragraphs. “a”, “e”, “g”, “h”, “l” part 2 art. 105; Part 2 Art. 210, part 3 art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The panel of judges, excluding from the verdict B.’s conviction under paragraph “h” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation drew attention to the following. As established by the totality of evidence examined at the trial, on the territory of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic a criminal community was created and existed consisting of religious paramilitary associations - Wahhabi jamaats (jamaat - usually means a territorial unit among the peoples of the North Caucasus, and Wahhabism will be discussed in detail in other sections of work), i.e. from autonomous stable groups as structural divisions. This criminal organization had as its goal the commission of grave and especially grave crimes and committed these crimes. It was distinguished by a large and stable composition of members; high degree of organization and cohesion; clear distribution of roles; had clearly defined leaders - “spiritual mentors”, whose authority was indisputable, whose orders were carried out virtually unquestioningly; was sufficiently highly and stably financed. B. took a direct and active part in the criminal organization, fulfilling the role assigned to him by the leaders of the community. As a result of terrorist attacks in the cities of Mineralnye Vody and Adyge-Khabl, committed by a criminal community, of which B. was an active member, 27 people died. Due to the fact that the main motive for B.’s criminal actions, as established by the court, was religious hatred, the Judicial Panel considered B.’s conviction for murder for mercenary motives to be unnecessary and subject to exclusion from the sentence. [6, p.111]

A perpetrator acting out of hatred or enmity may pursue several goals that differ in content. First, he may act with the aim of provoking further open conflict between representatives of different political, ideological, religious, social groups, races or nationalities. Secondly, its goal may be reduced to revenge for the transition of the victim from one political, ideological, religious, social group to another (obviously, this goal is impossible in relation to race or nationality). Third, its goal may be the “sincere” goal of eradicating or weakening the other; a crime in such cases can be committed either spontaneously or during mass clashes between different groups.

It should be noted that committing a crime motivated by hatred or enmity is not necessarily associated with the personal identification of the victim, who may turn out to be a complete stranger to the perpetrator, but a “stranger” to him. Personification of the victim, as mentioned earlier, is mainly inherent in the commission of a crime motivated by political hatred or enmity, although it is not necessary in this case either.

Thus, establishing extremist motives for committing an act allows us to classify specific “common criminal” crimes as manifestations of extremist activity. Let us note that in many cases crimes qualified by the presence of extremist motives are committed in... together with acts, responsibility for the commission of which is provided for in Art. 280, 282, 282.1, 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since they are already direct manifestations of established extremist views and beliefs, a means for disseminating such views and beliefs.

In conclusion, we note that criminal legislation is obliged to prohibit activities aimed at committing crimes not only based on hatred or enmity, but also discord on ideological, political, racial, national, social or religious grounds as a less pronounced, but nevertheless quite negative attitude . The Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926 (Article 59) and 1960 (Article 74 as amended in 1995) took this circumstance into account, and currently the Federal Law “On Combating Extremist Activities” defines the concept of “extremist activity (extremism) » directly uses the term “discord” (incitement of social, racial, national or religious hatred). Accordingly, when formulating extremist motives, it is necessary to use the motive of discord. Corresponding changes should be made to paragraph “e” of Part 2 of Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, stated as follows:

“e) committing a crime motivated by political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred, enmity or discord, or motivated by hatred, enmity or discord in relation to any social group”...,

as well as those articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that contain a similar qualifying feature of the crime.

Literature:

1. Kabanov P. A. Political hatred or enmity as a motive for a crime // Russian justice. 2011. No. 3. - P. 34.

2. Borisov S. The essence of extremist crimes // Mirrovoy judge. 2012. No. 4. P. 9.

3. Popov L.N. Murder under aggravating circumstances. - St. Petersburg: Prior, 2008. - P. 886.

4. Bidova B. B. Correlation of the principles of criminal legislation and criminal legal policy // Young scientist. 2013. No. 10. - S.

5. Egorova N. On the issue of new motives for committing crimes // Criminal law. 2013. No. 1. - P. 41.

6. Bidova B. B. Crimes of an extremist nature: criminal law and criminological analysis (using the example of the North Caucasus Federal District). Monograph. - Kislovodsk: Publishing House of the Master Center, 2013. - 224 p.

Features of the crime

The reasons provided for in paragraph “l” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can be divided into two parts:

• hostility due to political, ideological views, race and nationality;
• religious hatred.

The first part represents hostility to the characteristics of a particular person, that is, not to the individual, but specifically to his belonging to a race or nation or ideology hated by the criminal.

Such murders are loud, aimed at openly demonstrating their hatred. If their goal is to incite national or other hatred, then the crime is qualified under two articles at once, namely under paragraph “l” of Part 2 of Art. 105 and paragraph “a”, part 2, art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (a separate provision on inciting hostility). This rule is established in PPVS No. 11 dated June 28, 2011.

Important! If the victim belonged to any race unpleasant to the victim, but the murder was committed for personal reasons, for example, because of a domestic quarrel, then it is not subject to qualification under paragraph “l”.

Video about Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Punishment

Murder motivated by political, ideological, racial, or national hatred is especially serious, which implies a high severity of punishment for its commission. The article has an alternative sanction and contains:

• imprisonment for a term of eight to twenty years with restriction of freedom for a term of one to two years;
• life imprisonment;
• death penalty .

Criminal legal significance of motives of hatred and enmity

Dautkereeva Markha Musaevna

3rd year student majoring in “Jurisprudence” of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Chechen State University”

Crimes motivated by political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or motivated by hatred or enmity against any social group (hereinafter, unless otherwise specified, crimes motivated by hatred or enmity) violate both the norms of international law, and the Constitution of the Russian Federation on equality and prohibition of discrimination. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 19, Part 2), the state “guarantees equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, affiliation public associations, as well as other circumstances. [1, p.25]

Of course, criminal legal means have never been and will not become the main ones in suppressing or preventing crimes motivated by hatred or enmity. But they remain indispensable for protecting vulnerable populations and for holding accountable and punishing those who commit these attacks. Refusal to use them in necessary cases will be perceived as a weakness of the state, as encouragement for new attacks by criminals.

Indeed, as the events of recent decades show, interethnic, interracial and interreligious conflicts and wars are capable of destroying any state, even those in which the concepts of “friendship of peoples” and “internationalism” have been proclaimed for decades as the principles of operation of all state and public institutions. Despite this, unfortunately, even today one can find many practical solutions and doctrinal approaches that indicate an underestimation of the danger in Russia of crimes based on Nazism, racism or xenophobia, or their one-sided assessment. [2, p.342]

The motives of hatred and enmity in domestic science have previously become the subject of research. However, continuous changes and additions to criminal legislation, difficulties and shortcomings in the practice of its application, active discussions on the problems of responsibility and punishment for crimes committed for these reasons, and, finally, the unfavorable statistics of these crimes necessitate new research.

Having conducted a study of the criminal legal significance of the motives of hatred and enmity, we formulated the following conclusions:

The current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 37 articles talks about: motives (compassion, hatred or enmity, blood feud, revenge for the lawful actions of others, pregnancy); motives (selfish, hooligan, other base); interest (selfish, other personal).

The criminal legal significance of motives boils down to the following: they can become a mandatory feature of the main element of the crime; they may be a mandatory feature of a qualified crime; motives not included in the crime shall be taken into account as circumstances mitigating or aggravating punishment. The criminal law concept of the motive for a crime should follow from the broader concept of the motive of behavior (activity) proposed by psychology, of which it (the crime) is a part. In the domestic science of criminal law there are various definitions of the concept “motive of a crime”. All of them, as a rule, consider motive as an incentive, that is, as a sign of an internal, mental element (subjective side) of the crime. [3, p.12]

We agree with those authors who define the motive of a crime through motivation (determined by certain needs and interests). Along with this, it should be recognized that in psychology there is no equal sign between these concepts, therefore the use of the concept of “motivation” as a synonym for the concept of “motive” should still be considered conditional. However, it must be emphasized that in relation to the goals and objectives of criminal law, such use, taking into account the specific role of motive in a crime, is justified.

In the criminal law literature, most experts agree that the motive for a crime is the motivation. Meanwhile, in certain provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the legislator uses both the concept of “inducement” and the concept of “motive”. In addition, the Criminal Code contains the expression “interest,” which is also considered in the literature as a motive for a crime.

We believe that in all such cases there is an unjustified discrepancy. The terminology in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be unified. Therefore, one should agree with the proposals on the advisability of replacing the terms “motivation” and “interest” with the term “motive” in all norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the motive of hatred or enmity has the following criminal legal meaning:

a) is recognized as an aggravating circumstance (clause “e”, Part 1, Article 63 of the Criminal Code);

b) is a constructive sign of a crime (clause “b”, part 1, article 213 of the Criminal Code);

c) is a qualifying feature of crimes (clause "l" part 2 of article 105; clause "e" part 2 of article 111 of the Criminal Code; clause "e" part 2 of article 112 of the Criminal Code; part 2 of art. 115 of the Criminal Code; part 2 of article 116 of the Criminal Code; part 2 of article 117; part 2 of article 119 of the Criminal Code; clause “b” of part 1 of article 213 of the Criminal Code; part 2 of article 214 of the Criminal Code; part 2 Article 244 of the Criminal Code);

d) may be a sign of any crime, which is therefore defined in law as a crime of an extremist nature (Note 2 to Article 2821 of the Criminal Code).

In the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the concepts of “hatred” and “enmity” are used not only as motives for a crime. They are also spoken of as a result that the perpetrator strives for. We are talking about Article 282 of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for “actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity.” However, we believe that hatred and enmity cannot be both the motive of a crime and the result of a crime, just as they cannot be both at the same time, for example, selfish motives. We believe that in the norms of the Criminal Code the same concepts should have the same content. In this regard, the current version of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can hardly be considered successful.

It seems to us that the use of the concept “extremist motive” is not entirely correct. Firstly, just as there cannot be, for example, a “terrorist motive,” there cannot be an “extremist motive.” Secondly, the name “extremist motive” does not imply the essence of the analyzed subjective attribute – hatred or enmity. [4, p.58]

We also consider the use of the concept “ideological, political, racial, national or religious motives” controversial, since these motives may not always mean hatred or enmity.

The definitions of the motive of religious hatred or enmity existing in the doctrine have one serious drawback. They do not take into account the events of recent years, the rapid changes taking place in the sphere of social relations, their politicization and the strengthening of fundamentalist movements, especially the growing influence and importance not so much of religions in general, but of various currents and directions (confessions) within individual religious teachings (religions). ).

From our point of view, there should be no social groups other than those existing on racial, national, religious or other grounds in the analyzed norms of Russian criminal law. The reference to “any social group” makes the relevant norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation not only dimensionless, but also allows both victims (for example, representatives of national or racial minorities) and their potential or actual executioners (skinheads, fascists and etc.).

It is proposed that in all relevant articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the words “on grounds of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or on grounds of hatred or enmity in relation to any social group” should be replaced with the words “on grounds of racial, national or religious hatred or enmity or religious fanaticism."

Almost all modern states provide for increased liability for committing a crime, primarily against a person and property, motivated by hatred. The latter, as a rule, includes national, ethnic, racial and religious hatred (less often, political or other hatred).

Literature:

1. Alekseev A.I., Gerasimov S.I., Sukharev A.Ya. Criminological prevention: theory, experience, problems. - M.: Norma, 2001.- 325 p.
2. Criminology: Textbook / Ed. Debt. - M.: Yurist, 2003. - 428 p.
3. The state of law and order in the North Caucasian Federal District: The main results of the operational and service activities of the Department of Internal Affairs in 2015. – 241s.
4. Bidova B.B. Socio-economic and political reasons for religious extremism. Religious and political extremism and ways to overcome it // In the collection: State and law: theory and practice Materials of the II International Scientific Conference. 2013. - pp. 55-59.

Features of a murder committed on the basis of religious hatred

Every person is granted freedom of religion at the constitutional level.
This right includes both the opportunity to identify oneself with any religion, and not to profess it at all. Choice must be respected and accepted by everyone. But religious hatred exists and includes hostility towards representatives of a particular religion, towards objects and objects of their culture, and places of their gatherings.

Murders motivated by hatred related to religion are common. They are based on the intolerance of the offender, and can be caused by:

• the victim’s refusal to profess a particular religion;
• changing their religion;
• an attempt to impose one’s faith on the criminal;
• belonging to another religion, etc.

The victim may either be familiar with the killer or be his random choice based on belonging to a particular religious group.

Punishment

Since religious and other possible extremist motives for committing a crime are included in one paragraph, for committing murder because of religion, you can also receive as punishment:

• imprisonment ( 8-20 years ) with restriction of freedom (1-2 years);
• life imprisonment;
• death penalty .

Important! In Part 2 of Art. 105, the death penalty is listed as a possible punishment, but in the Russian Federation it is not currently applied, as required by international law.

Religious extremism: problems of qualification and delimitation of offenses

 Key words: violation of human rights to freedom of conscience and religion, religious extremism, offense, criminal liability

In the context of the gradual process of declericalization of most modern states, as well as an increase in the scale and number of terrorist acts, there is an absolute need for a legal description of such a phenomenon as religious extremism. This task poses the greatest difficulty in the multi-confessional environment of the Russian Federation.

The issue of religious extremism has its own specificity, which lies in the fact that the tenets of international law imply two positions, in exceptional cases contradicting each other: on the one hand, the right of every person to freely express his opinion, on the other, the duty of every person to comply with the prohibitions of the law and be guided by principles of humanism in any speech (in any form) against religion, dissemination of extremist ideas, incitement of religious hatred, etc.

Currently, Russian legislation establishes administrative, legal and criminal liability for offenses related to religious extremism and violation of the constitutional rights of a person and citizen to freedom of conscience and religion. However, it should be noted that the legislator has not yet come to the conclusion of what exactly should be understood by religious extremism - there is no definition of this concept in regulatory legal acts, which will significantly complicate the qualification of such offenses.

Turning to doctrinal sources, one can identify several approaches to the concept of religious extremism.

Thus, A. A. Khorovinnikov understands religious extremism as “a type of political extremism, veiled by the corresponding dogmas...” [7, p. 7].

Along with this, there is an opinion according to which religious extremism includes only intolerance towards representatives of other religions and confessions, their views and beliefs [2].

From the point of view of R. R. Abdulganeev: “...religious extremism is one of the extreme forms of social consciousness, having the character of a social phenomenon associated with the implementation of radical religious ideology, through the recognition of a true, clearly defined religious idea, categorical rejection of religious, social, moral, political and other views that run counter to the proclaimed only true religious doctrine" [1, p. 151].

However, in our opinion, the concept of religious extremism is most fully revealed by M. A. Yavorsky, who proposes to consider religious extremism as an extreme form of implementation of radical religious ideology, aimed at committing acts for religious reasons prohibited by current domestic legislation, as well as public calls to commit of these acts towards individuals and social groups who adhere to a different worldview compared to extremists [9, p. 22].

In any case, such a refusal by the legislator to provide the law enforcement officer with a definition of religious extremism to a certain extent complicates the latter’s activities in classifying offenses and assigning corresponding legal liability.

Perhaps the most striking example of the consequences of the lack of detailed regulation of religious extremism is the act committed by the notorious musical group “Pussy Riot”, expressed in an extremist protest that took place in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. On August 17, 2012, the Khamovnichesky District Court made a decision [10] finding the members of the group guilty under Part 2 of Art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Indeed, this article provides that hooligan acts can be committed based on religious hatred or enmity, especially since, according to the defendants, their actions had no religious background and consisted only of expressing protest for political reasons. It is worth noting that the case was not limited to consideration in the first instance, but subsequently underwent only minor changes. There are still disputes about the correctness of the court’s classification of the offense and the imposition of punishment, as well as about how competent it was to classify the offense as criminal proceedings, bypassing administrative ones.

Let us turn to other legal norms, which together may cause the law enforcement officer certain difficulties in qualifying crimes related to religious extremism and violation of human rights to freedom of conscience and religion. In particular, we are talking about Art. 5.26 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation - Violation of legislation on freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and religious associations, Art. 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - Violation of the right to freedom of conscience and religion, as well as Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - Inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity.

So, for example, by the decision of the Zavodsky District Court of Kemerovo dated September 14, 2016, administrative liability was imposed under Art. 5.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens were charged for carrying out illegal missionary activities on the territory of the Russian Federation in violation of the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 24.2 Federal Law of September 26, 1997 No. 125-FZ “On freedom of conscience and religious associations” [11].

By the verdict of the Pervomaisky District Court of Izhevsk dated August 21, 2014 under Art. 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, gr. Demin for posting on his page on social networks images that offend the feelings of believers [12].

By the decision of the Qualification Board of Judges of the Udmurt Republic dated May 15, 2015, the powers of the judge of the Malopurginsky District Court, Gr. Vershinin, whose actions showed signs of a crime under Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [13].

An analysis of judicial practice shows that law enforcement officials actually experience certain difficulties in qualifying acts against the constitutional human rights to freedom of conscience and religion. The author agrees with the opinion of scientists [3, 6, 8] that problems in the qualification of these acts arise due to the imperfection of legal terminology, as well as the difficulty of distinguishing between related crimes and offenses of a religious nature.

In addition, these crimes (offences) are often committed using information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, i.e. they belong to the category of computer crimes, which makes their detection difficult due to technical latency [4, 5].

Taking into account the above, we propose to make the following changes to the dispositions of the analyzed articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation:

1. In the disposition of Art. 5.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for the following offenses for individuals:

− Carrying out missionary activities by citizens in violation of the requirements of legislation on freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and religious associations.

− Carrying out missionary activities by foreign citizens or stateless persons in violation of the requirements of legislation on freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and religious associations.

1. Add Article 5.261 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, providing for administrative liability of legal entities for the following offenses:

− Obstructing the exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, including the adoption or renunciation of religious or other beliefs, joining or leaving a religious association.

− Carrying out activities by a religious organization without indicating its full official name, including the production or distribution within the framework of missionary activities of literature, printed, audio and video materials without labeling with the specified name or with incomplete or deliberately false labeling.

− Carrying out missionary activities by legal entities in violation of the requirements of legislation on freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and religious associations.

1. Add to the disposition of Art. 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the qualifying feature “Obstruction of the exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, including the adoption of religious or other beliefs, or renunciation of them, joining or leaving a religious association.”

Literature:

1. Abdulganeev R. R. Religious extremism: approaches to understanding // Bulletin of the Kazan Legal Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2010. No. 2. pp. 151–153.

2. Bely O.I. Psychological and political stability of youth - a guarantor of protection from extremism // Theory and practice of social development. 2012. No. 3. pp. 77–81.

3. Criminology. A common part. Textbook / Agapov P. V., Amirbekov K. I., Bogolyubova T. A., Dikanova T. A., Kapinus O. S., Merkuryev V. V., Obrazhiev K. V., Pavlinov A. V., Rastoropov S. V., Sklyarov S. V., Andreev B. V., Bazhanov S. V., Evdokimov K. N., Zhubrin R. V., Larkov A. N., Raskina T. V., Sokolov D. A., Stepanov O. A. - Moscow, 2016. Ser. 58 Bachelor. Academic course (1st ed.). 303 pp.

4. Criminology. Special part in 2 T. Volume 2. Textbook / Kapinus O. S., Agapov P. V., Amirbekov K. I., Bogolyubova T. A., Dikanova T. A., Merkuryev V. V., Obrazhiev K. V., Pavlinov A.V., Rastoropov S.V., Sklyarov S.V., Andreev B.V., Bazhanov S.V., Evdokimov K.N., Zhubrin R.V., Larkov A.N. , Raskina T.V., Sokolov D.A., Stepanov O.A. - Moscow, 2016. Ser. 58 Bachelor. Academic course (1st ed.). 311 p.

5. Sklyarov S.V., Evdokimov K.N. Modern approaches to defining the concept, structure and essence of computer crime in the Russian Federation // Criminological Journal of the Baikal State University of Economics and Law. 2016. T. 10. No. 2. pp. 322–330.

6. Theoretical foundations of crime prevention at the present stage of development of Russian society: monograph / Agapov P. V., Antonov-Romanovsky G. V., Artemenkov V. K., Bazhanov S. V., Bogolyubova T. A., Borisov S. V., Vaskina I. A., Vinokurov S. I., Voevodina T. G., Vorontsov A. A., Dikanova T. A., Evdokimov K. N., Evlanova O. A., Erezhipaliev D. I. , Zhidkikh A.A., Zhubrin R.V., Iliy S.K., Kapinus O.S., Koimshidi G.F., Krasnikova E.V. et al. - Moscow, 2016. 656 p.

7. Khorovinnikov A. A. Extremism as a social phenomenon (philosophical analysis): abstract. dis. Ph.D. philosopher. Sci. Saratov, 2007.

8. Yurkovsky A.V., Evdokimov K.N., Derevskova V.M. Administrative law. - Irkutsk, 2012. 287 p.

9. Yavorsky M. A. Causes and conditions of manifestations of religious extremism in modern Russia // Legal world. 2008. No. 11. pp. 22–24.

10. Verdict of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow dated August 17, 2012 on charges against Tolokonnikova N.A., Alyokhina M.V., Samutsevich E.S. in case No. 1–170/2012 // https://bsr. sudrf.ru/bigs/portal.html#https://bsr.sudrf.ru/bigs/id=1ba70d0ff594a16e0121239bcf8d48d8&shard=Criminal cases&from=p&r={"groups": ["Criminal cases"]. (11/17/2016).

11. Resolution of the Zavodsky District Court of Kemerovo dated September 14, 2016 on the imposition of an administrative penalty in case No. 5-2394/2016 // https://bsr.sudrf.ru/bigs/portal.html#https://bsr .sudrf.ru/bigs/id=ffc5c21ffe5e81692a31c4e43b1ee5c2&shard=Administrative affairs&from=p&r={"start":0",rows":10",uid": "3ffc4c31–6b54–4c59-b51d-440a3104fa12" ",groups": [ "Administrative Affairs"]. (Date of access: 11/17/2016).

12. Verdict of the Pervomaisky District Court of Izhevsk dated August 21, 2014 on charges against R. A. Demin // https://pervomir2.udm.msudrf.ru/modules.php?name=info_pages&id=314 (11.17.2016) .

13. Decision of the Qualification Board of Judges of the Udmurt Republic dated May 15, 2015 on imposing a disciplinary sanction on I. B. Vershinin in case No. 5/2 // https://ud.vkks.ru/publication/30004/. (11/17/2016).

How to write a term paper on speech therapy

07.09.2010 262648

These guidelines are compiled to help students gain an understanding of the content and structure of coursework in speech therapy.

Logopedia of pedagogical science that studies anomalies of speech development with normal hearing, explores the manifestations, nature and mechanisms of speech disorders, develops the scientific basis for overcoming and preventing them means of special training and education.

The subject of speech therapy as a science is speech disorders and the process of training and education of persons with speech disorders.

The object of study is a person suffering from a speech disorder.

The main task of speech therapy as a science is the study, prevention and elimination of various types of speech disorders.

Coursework in speech therapy is a student's scientific and experimental research. This type of educational activity, provided for by the educational and professional program and curriculum, contributes to the acquisition of skills in working with literature, analyzing and summarizing literary sources in order to determine the range of insufficiently studied problems, determining the content and methods of experimental research, processing skills and qualitative analysis of the results obtained. The need to complete coursework in speech therapy is due to the updating of knowledge concerning the content, organization, principles, methods and techniques of speech therapy work.

As a rule, during their studies, students must write two term papers - theoretical and practical.

The first course work should be devoted to the analysis and synthesis of general and specialized literature on the chosen topic. Based on this analysis, it is necessary to justify and develop a method of ascertaining (diagnostic) experiment.

In the second course work, it is necessary to provide an analysis of the results obtained during the ascertaining experiment, as well as determine the directions and content of speech therapy work, and select adequate methods and techniques of correction.

So, let’s present the general requirements for the content and design of coursework in speech therapy.

The initial and most important stage of working on a course project is the choice of a topic, which is either proposed by the supervisor or chosen by the student independently from a list of topics that are consistent with the areas of scientific research of the department.

Each topic can be modified, considered in different aspects, but taking into account a theoretical and practical approach. Having chosen a topic, the student needs to think through in detail its specific content, areas of work, practical material, etc., which should be reflected both in the formulation of the topic and in the further construction of the study. It should be recalled that the chosen topic may not only have a purely theoretical orientation, for example: “Dysarthria. Characteristics of the defect”, “Classification of dysgraphia”, but also take into account the practical significance of the problem under consideration, for example: “Speech therapy work on speech correction for dysarthria”. It should also be taken into account that when formulating a topic, excessive detail should be avoided, for example: “Formation of prosodic components of speech in preschoolers of the sixth year of life attending a preschool institution for children with severe speech impairments.”

The course work includes such mandatory parts as: introduction, three chapters, conclusion, bibliography and appendix.

The text of the term paper begins with the title page . An example of its design can be seen here.

Then the content of the work is given, in which the names of chapters, paragraphs, and sections are formulated in strict accordance with the content of the thesis. An example of its design can be seen here.

In the text, each subsequent chapter and paragraph begins on a new page. At the end of each chapter, the materials are summarized and conclusions are formulated.

The introduction reveals the relevance of the problem under consideration in general and the topic being studied in particular; the problem, subject, object, and purpose of the study are defined. In accordance with the goal and hypothesis, objectives and a set of research methods aimed at achieving the objectives must be defined.

The relevance of the topic lies in reflecting the current level of pedagogical science and practice, meeting the requirements of novelty and usefulness.

When defining the research problem, it is important to indicate what practical tasks it will help to implement in training and educating people with speech pathology.

The object of research is understood as certain aspects of pedagogical reality, perceived through a system of theoretical and practical knowledge. The ultimate goal of any research is to improve this object.

The subject of research is some part, property, element of an object, i.e. the subject of research always indicates a specific aspect of the object that is to be studied and about which the researcher wants to gain new knowledge. An object is a part of an object.

You can give an example of the formulation of the object, subject and problem of research:

– The object of the study is the speech activity of preschool children with phonetic-phonemic speech disorders.

– The subject of the study is the features of intonation speech of children with phonetic-phonemic speech disorders.

– The research problem is to determine effective directions for speech therapy work on the formation of intonation expressiveness of speech in the system of correctional intervention.

The purpose of the study contributes to the specification of the object being studied. The goal of any research is to solve a specific problem. The goal is specified in tasks taking into account the subject of research.

The research objectives are formulated in a certain sequence, which determines the logic of the research. The research objectives are set on the basis of a theoretical analysis of the problem and an assessment of the state of its solution in practice.

The first chapter is an analysis of literary sources, which examines the state of this problem in historical and modern aspects, and presents the most important theoretical principles that formed the basis of the study.

When writing the first chapter, you should pay attention to the fact that the text of the course work must be written in a scientific style. When presenting scientific material, it is necessary to comply with the following requirements:

– Specificity – a review of only those sources that are necessary to disclose only a given topic or solve only a given problem;

– Clarity – which is characterized by semantic coherence and integrity of individual parts of the text;

– Logicality – which provides for a certain structure of presentation of the material;

– Reasoning – evidence of thoughts (why this and not otherwise);

– Precision of wording, excluding ambiguous interpretation of the authors’ statements.

A literary review of the state of the problem being studied should not be reduced to a consistent presentation of literary sources. It should present a generalized description of the literature: highlight the main directions (currents, concepts, points of view), analyze in detail and evaluate the most fundamental works of representatives of these directions.

When writing a work, the student must correctly use literary materials, make references to the authors and sources from which the results of scientific research are borrowed. Failure to provide required references will reduce your coursework grade.

As a rule, in coursework on speech therapy, references to literary sources are formatted as follows: the number of the cited source in the general list of references is placed in square brackets. For example: General speech underdevelopment is a speech pathology in which there is a persistent lag in the formation of all components of the language system: phonetics, vocabulary and grammar [17].

When using quotations, in square brackets, in addition to indicating the source number, the page number from which this excerpt is taken is indicated, for example: Speech rhythm is based on a physiological and intellectual basis, since, firstly, it is directly related to the rhythm of breathing. Secondly, being an element that performs a communicative function, “correlates with meaning, i.e. controlled intellectually” [23, P.40].

However, course work should not be of a purely abstract nature, so you should not abuse the unreasonable abundance of citations. Quoting should be logically justified, convincing and used only when really necessary.

In the second chapter , devoted to experimental research, the organization should be described and the program of the ascertaining experiment should be presented. The survey methodology, as a rule, consists of a description of several series of tasks, with detailed instructions, visual and lexical material, the procedure for completing tasks by experiment participants, and scoring criteria. This chapter also provides a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the results obtained.

When analyzing the results of an experiment, it is necessary to use a scoring system. Examples of various criteria for quantitative and qualitative assessment are presented in the following works:

– Glukhov V.P. Formation of coherent speech in preschool children with general speech underdevelopment. - M.: Arkti, 2002. - 144 p.

– Fotekova T.A. Test methodology for diagnosing oral speech of primary schoolchildren. - M.: Arkti, 2000. - 56 p.

– Levchenko I.Yu. Pathopsychology: Theory and practice. - M.: Academy, 2000. - 232 p.

In order to visually present the results obtained during the experimental study, it is recommended to use tables, graphs, diagrams, etc. Histograms can be used in a variety of ways - columnar, cylindrical, planar, volumetric, etc. An example of the design of tables, figures, and histograms can be found here.

The third chapter provides a rationale for the proposed methods and techniques and reveals the content of the main stages of correctional work.

The conclusion contains a summary of the material presented and the main conclusions formulated by the author.

The bibliography must contain at least 25 sources. The list includes bibliographic information about the sources used in preparing the work. An example of its design can be seen here.

In the application you can present bulky tables or illustrations, examination protocols, observation records, products of activity (drawings, written works of children), notes from speech therapy classes, etc.

The volume of one course work must be at least 30 pages of typewritten text.

In general, coursework in speech therapy is the basis for a future thesis, in which the study of the begun problem can be continued, but from the standpoint of a different approach or a comparative analysis of the disorders being studied in different age categories of people with different types of speech disorders.

The content and format of theses in speech therapy can be found here.

Literature:

1. How to write a term paper on speech therapy: Methodological recommendations. Educational and methodological manual / Comp. Artemova E.E., Tishina L.A. / Ed. Orlova O.S. – M.: MGOPU, 2008. – 35 p.

2. Research work of students in the system of higher professional pedagogical education (specialty 031800 - Speech therapy). Methodological recommendations for completing the thesis / Compiled by. L.V. Lopatina, V.I. Lipakova, G.G. Golubeva. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A. I. Herzen, 2002. - 140 p.