Self-government (Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation): commentary and examples
What is the type of crime such as arbitrariness (Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)? Commentary, examples from judicial practice and various explanations for this article will be presented below.
What is this article about?
It makes little sense to cite the entire article about arbitrariness (Article 330, of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The commentary on this crime, as well as the punishment for it, will be much more interesting, and even more useful. What does the Criminal Code tell us? Self-righteousness is a certain type of offense, in which a citizen commits certain acts that do not comply with applicable law. Self-rule is fixed both in criminal, and in the administrative code. However, in both of these documents, the concepts of this act are somewhat different. Thus, the Criminal Code treats arbitrariness precisely as a crime - with the use of physical force, threats and other pressure. The Administrative Code considers the act as an offense committed, as a rule, in the workplace.At the same time, arbitrariness always entails material damage.
Comment on the article
What else can you say about such a crime as arbitrariness (Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)? Commentary on the punishment should be given, relying immediately on both of the above code. So, the Criminal Code provides for punishment of up to five years in prison, and administrative - a fine of up to 80 thousand rubles, or correctional work up to two years. What is the reason for such a gap? Again, despite the fact that the topic of the articles in both codes is the same, their content is somewhat different: arbitrariness in administrative law does not provide for violence, but only material damage.
It is worth paying attention to the subjective side of the crime. The fact is that a person, who decides against arbitrariness, is well aware of possible negative consequences, namely, harm to others. Therefore, the violation of the law is also intentional.
Difficulties with the assessment of crime
Despite the fact that to date has been accumulated a huge judicial practice, there are still many problems with such an article as “Self-Government” (Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). A comment on this should be presented further.
The whole problem with it is a very thin, almost invisible facet with such acts as self-defense or self-defense. The fact is that the definition of this face, due to many factors, is practically impossible, or very difficult. Due to the vagueness and inaccuracy of the wording, many citizens fall under the article under consideration because of their self-defense. For example, it should be noted that in many Western countries the situation is completely opposite. In the USA, for example, self-defense is practically unlimited.
How can I solve the problem? Naturally, only through careful legal research, as well as through various modifications and changes.
However, the problems do not end there. Another difficulty that may arise with the application of the presented article is the concept of the so-called challenging. This term is a necessary feature of the objective side of the whole process. Challenging, as a rule, is used when seizing someone else's property (one of the types of such crimes as arbitrariness, Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).Commentary and examples of challenging will be given later in the article.
So what is the problem? Again, in the absence of clear language. The fact is that the judicial authorities do not give an answer to the question of what constitutes a challenge. Some lawyers argue that this is a statement of the victim of a violation of the rights by self-directed actions of the perpetrator. Other lawyers believe this interpretation is fundamentally wrong. Just because of such a phenomenon as challenging, a person who committed a crime in the form of arbitrary actions cannot be detained under the law until one of the victims submits a relevant application to the court.
Explanation of the Supreme Court
At the moment, the article on arbitrariness is considered one of the most complex and difficult to use throughout the criminal process. Despite the seemingly inaccuracy and vagueness of the wording in the law itself, many judges are sometimes too strict in the smallest detail. The Supreme Court is forced to constantly disassemble and give appropriate explanations to the lower instances, often not understanding, what punishment should be given for one or another petty arbitrariness.And the word "small" here is the key: often in court practice there may be absolutely crazy cases. Notable is, for example, the recent case of a man who found a cartridge in his area. Man attracted for illegal possession of weapons.
How can I solve the problem with art. 330 of the Criminal Code? The corpus delicti and punishment should be regulated in more detail. Many lawyers suggest introducing into the law the concept and signs of "substantial damage." In many ways, this should help distinguish arbitrariness as an administrative offense from arbitrariness as a criminal offense.
For a better understanding of what constitutes arbitrariness, it is worth mentioning the examples of art. 330 of the Criminal Code with comments. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has helped to accumulate a huge judicial practice, of which some cases it would be worthwhile to describe further. Immediately it should be noted that very often the court makes mistakes in the qualification of arbitrary acts. In many respects precisely because of this, lawyers so often criticize the provisions of the presented article.
The main object of crime is, as a rule, the interests of organizational structures or citizens.We can give such a simple example as samostroy. Despite the fact that information about it is recorded in many other codes and regulations, samostroy can be attributed to the article "arbitrariness" (Art. 330, of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The commentary, the punishment and the outcome of the case are always given by the court, however, as a rule, it initiates a case on samostroi, one person.
Judicial practice keeps a lot of cases of arbitrariness. The most striking of them are, of course, the excess of established self-defense, the illegal return of debts, uncoordinated buildings and their demolition. The latter case, by the way, should be given special attention. The fact is that only a court can decide on the demolition of the squatter settlement (this has already been discussed above). However, often such a decision is made by local authorities, and not agreeing with anyone their decision. Article 330 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in a new edition considers this as the most true arbitrariness.
Where to file a complaint?
Often are the cases of the so-called abuse of power. Self-rule is usually done by the highest official bodies, and the lower instances cannot do anything about it.However, an important question arises here: they can't or they don't want to? The fact is that any person has every right to complain to a higher authority for arbitrariness. But how to do that?
Selected profile structure. If we are talking about, for example, a school, then you need to complain to the department of education, if not to the Ministry. If we are talking about an arbitration court, the complaint is filed with the Supreme Court.
Self-rule is indeed largely flawed and problematic, but as yet an effective article. This is what should be considered.