On the Language of the Special Part of the Modern Criminal Law

Diana Golenko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14258/leglinleglin(2022)2501

2022-10-01

Legal Linguistics

Abstract:The article concentrates on the study of the language of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a component of legislative technique. It outlines some debatable issues of using the language when constructing dispositions of the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author draws attention to some terminological ambiguity in modern criminal law. The legislator uses terms, the content of which is not always uniformly rendered in practice, which entails various penal consequences for the perpetrators of crimes. For example, the same actions of a person can be considered in some cases as a completed crime, in others as an attempted crime. The practice of applying Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 138.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the ways of possible elimination of emerging contradictions in the practice of applying the law are indicated. Attention is drawn to the presence of different terms used to refer to the same concepts, as well as the opposite situation - when one term means different things. Corpus delicti with administrative prejudice is given as an example. It is important to strive for the unification of terms that mean the same thing, to exclude situations where the same term in law has a different meaning. The article envestigates the issue of excessive definition of terms in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the content of which is clear to the law enforcer. Also, redundance in the definition of terms the content of which is specified in the sectoral legislation is indicated. Such definitions increase the scope of legislation, but have no practical meaning. The author comes to the conclusion that the language of the Special Part of the Criminal Law should be understandable. The terms used by the legislator must be clear and have a well-established common understanding. The brevity and length of the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Law should not damage their accuracy and clarity.