The article attempts to study the issue of how differentiation of responsibility for crimes in the field of innovative activity was carried out in different historical periods of the development of Russia. Religious norms allow not only to draw a line between criminal and non-criminal, but also to influence the determination of the gravity of a crime and its social danger in comparison with other illegal acts. However is this a universal rule? In this work the author focuses on the study of the grounds for differentiating criminal liability in relation to such a group of socially dangerous acts as crimes in the field of innovation. The answer to the question posed by the author cannot be obtained without a comprehensive study of religious norms, an understanding of the nature and means of differentiating responsibility, defining the concept of crimes in the field of innovation, the role of the church in the system of regulating social relations. The paper concludes that today it is quite difficult to determine the typical degree of social danger of such a group of socially dangerous acts as crimes in the field of innovation. This is due to the fact that these crimes are not systematized and are scattered across various chapters of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In this regard one of the tasks of the science of criminal law is the definition of the concept, types and public danger of crimes in the field of innovation. Otherwise this may lead to the unjustified inclusion in the criminal law of the rules establishing criminal liability for acts whose criminal penalties are doubtful.
Keywords: innovation activity; the crime; religious norm
Head of the Research Department, Associate Professor of
the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology of the Vologda Institute of Law
and Economics of the Federal Penal Service of Russia, PhD. in Law
, e-mail email@example.com
1. Afanas’ev A. N. Poeticheskie vozzreniya slavyan na prirodu: opyt sravnitel’nogo izucheniya slavyanskih predanij i verovanij
v svyazi s mificheskimi skazaniyami drugih rodstvennyh narodov. Tom 3 [Slavic poetic views on nature: the experience of a
comparative study of Slavic traditions and beliefs in connection with the mythical legends of other kindred peoples. Vol. 3].
Moscow, 2013. 362 p. (In Russ.).
2. Baboshina E. V. Pravo i religiya: teoretiko-pravovye aspekty vzaimodejstviya [Law and religion: theoretical and legal
aspects of interaction]. YUrist»-Pravoved» – Lawyer-Legist, 2009, no. 5, pp. 33–37. (In Russ.).
3. Vasil’evskij A. V. Differenciaciya ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti i nakazaniya v Obshchej chasti ugolovnogo prava. Diss.
kand. yurid. nauk [Differentiation of criminal liability and punishment in the General part of criminal law. Diss. PhD. in Law].
Yaroslavl, 2000. 219 p. (In Russ.).
4. Kaplin M. N. Differenciaciya ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti za prestupleniya prostiv zhizni i zdorov’ya. Diss. kand. yurid. nauk
[Differentiation of criminal liability for crimes against life and health. Diss. PhD. in Law]. Yekaterinburg, 2003. 187 p. (In
5. Korobov P. V. Differenciaciya ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti v klassifikacii ugolovno nakazuemyh deyanij. Diss. kand. yurid.
nauk [Differentiation of criminal liability in the classification of criminal offenses. Diss. PhD. in Law]. Moscow, 1983. 225 p.
6. Lapshin V. F. Teoreticheskie osnovy ustanovleniya i differenciacii otvetstvennosti za finansovye prestupleniya. Diss. dokt.
yurid. nauk [Theoretical foundations for establishing and differentiating liability for financial crimes. Diss. Dsc. in Law].
Ryazan, 2016. 446 p. (In Russ.).
7. Lesnievski-Kostareva T. A. Differenciaciya ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti. Teoriya i zakonodatel’naya praktika [Differentiation
of criminal liability. Theory and legislative practice]. Moscow, 2000. 400 p. (In Russ.).
8. Mel’nikova YU. B. Differenciaciya otvetstvennosti i individualizaciya nakazaniya [Differentiation of responsibility and
individualization of punishment]. Krasnoyarsk, 1989. 115 p. (In Russ.).
9. Solov’ev O. G. Prestupleniya v sfere nalogooblozheniya (st. 194, 198, 199 UK RF): problemy yuridicheskoj tekhniki i
differenciacii otvetstvennosti. Diss. kand. yurid. nauk [Crimes in the field of taxation (Articles 194, 198, 199 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation): problems of legal technology and differentiation of responsibility. Diss. PhD. in Law].
Yaroslavl, 2002. 222 p. (In Russ.).
10. CHugaev A. P. Individualizaciya otvetstvennosti za prestupleniya i ee osobennosti po delam nesovershennoletnih
[Individualization of responsibility for crimes and its features in juvenile affairs]. Krasnodar, 1979. 96 p. (In Russ.).