ASSESSMENT OF ERRORS IN THE QUALIFICATION OF ACCOMPLICES IN CRIMES AND THEIR IMPACT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICE

ABSTRACT

This article is devoted to the problem of errors in the qualification of accomplices in crimes. The impact of these errors on law enforcement practice is assessed. Also, this article discusses the types of errors in the process of qualifying accomplices to a crime with examples from judicial practice. The negative consequences of these errors are highlighted. The measures necessary to improve this legal activity are proposed.

Keywords: errors in the qualification of accomplices in crimes, judicial practice, criminal activity, the rule of law.

The issue of assessment of errors in the qualification of accomplices in crimes occupies an important place in criminal law science and practice. Errors in qualification may lead to an incorrect determination of the degree of participation of a person in a crime, which, in turn, affects the fairness and validity of the punishment imposed. The complexity of the correct assessment of participation of persons in a crime is due to many factors, including the ambiguity of existing normative acts and differences in their interpretation.

Despite the availability of developed methodologies and approaches to the qualification of accomplices’ actions, law enforcement practice demonstrates significant differences in the assessment of the same situations by different courts. This does not only complicate the process of law enforcement, but also undermines confidence in justice. Thus, the analysis of errors in qualification and their consequences is relevant to improve the efficiency and fairness of the criminal legal system [1, p. 5].

One of the most common mistakes in the process of qualification of accomplices of crimes is the incorrect definition of their role in the committed act. In legal practice, there is often a situation when the offender is qualified as an organizer, and the instigator as an offender. Such confusion leads to unlawful court decisions and discrepancies in law enforcement [2, p. 35]. Thus, the Cassation Decision of the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 17, 2009 in case No. 5-O09-18 describes a case in which the court erroneously qualified Monastyrsky’s actions under part 3 of Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a hired killing organizer. Taking into account the case materials, Monastyrsky did not commit actions corresponding to the concept of the organizer of a crime, which is disclosed in part 3 of Art. 33 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. During the trial it was established that the accused Monastyrsky acted as an instigator, having offered G. to organize the murder. After receiving confirmation from G. about the completion of the task, Monastyrsky transferred him part of the agreed amount and promised a subsequent payment of the remaining part. However, Monastyrsky was detained before the fulfillment of his promise. In this regard, since he used a bribe to induce a person to commit a crime, his activity is to be qualified as incitement under part 4 of article 33, part 1 of article 30, paragraphs “a”, “z”, part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [3].

Another significant error is the underestimation or overestimation of the actual participation of a person in criminal activity. For example, it is difficult to establish the degree of guilt of a participant who contributed to the commission of a crime passively, not being an offender or organizer. In such cases, both overestimation and underestimation of the degree of responsibility are possible. An example of this is the case of I.A. Murzina № 5-UD15-82, in which the court of first instance found her guilty of organizing an escape from custody, committed by a person in pretrial detention, and qualified these actions under part 3 of Art. 33, part 1 of Art. 313 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. During the consideration of the case, the cassation court found that no evidence confirming I.A. Murzina’s participation in the organization of escape from custody was presented. The panel of judges of cassation instance determined that the facts indicating the planning and coordination of actions of a great number of people to commit an escape, as well as the existence of the participants’ mutual awareness of the upcoming crime, were not found. These circumstances serve as a basis for the conclusion that there are insufficient grounds for bringing I.A. Murzina to criminal responsibility as an organizer of the crime [4].

In addition, errors in qualification may arise due to the incorrect interpretation of legal norms or insufficient analysis of case materials. Incorrect application of the norms governing complicity may lead to incorrect legal conclusions about the nature of the committed act and the lack of a proper basis for bringing to responsibility [5, p. 4].

Errors in the qualification of participants in a crime inevitably cause a chain of negative consequences for the entire law enforcement system. Inappropriate definition of the status of accomplices leads to distortion of the concept of justice in the eyes of citizens, creating prerequisites for loss of confidence in the institutions of law and order and the judicial system. The main result of such errors is not only the unlawful application of criminal liability, but also the potential violation of the rights of the accused.

From an enforcement perspective, erroneous qualification can lead to mistrials that may result in innocent people being convicted and perpetrators being left without adequate punishment. This results in a waste of judicial resources for both the State and the accused, which is particularly critical in the context of judicial caseloads. In addition, the misclassification of accomplices to a crime prevents the accurate statistical recording of crime, thus undermining the effectiveness of planning and implementation of measures to prevent crime and enhance public safety [6, p. 45].

Recognizing the magnitude of the impact of such errors on legal practice requires the judiciary to implement and monitor clear procedures. This should include a more careful consideration of evidence, a deeper analysis of the motives and roles of all participants in the crime, and increased attention to judges’ education and training regarding the correct qualification of complicity. Only such an approach will minimize qualification errors and increase the effectiveness of law enforcement.

A thorough examination of all the factual circumstances of the case as well as the motives and goals of each person involved in the crime should be ensured. This will make it possible to determine more accurately the degree of guilt and the role of each participant in the crime. It is important to build an effective system of training and advanced training for judges and investigators, emphasizing aspects of criminal law qualification, including complicity in a crime. In addition, it is necessary to improve legislation in terms of defining and differentiating accomplices’ roles. It is also recommended to improve the interaction between different law enforcement agencies at the stages of investigation and trial.

In conclusion, the integration of modern technologies into the process of investigation and legal proceedings can significantly improve the efficiency of identification of the roles of the participants of the crime and the accuracy of their qualification. The introduction of data analysis software and artificial intelligence will help to identify patterns and correlations that are inaccessible to human perception, thereby reducing the likelihood of erroneous qualification.

References:

1. Pudovochkin, Y. E. Judicial practice of qualification of crimes committed in complicity // All-Russian criminological journal. – 2011. – № 2. – С. 5-15.
2. Pudovochkin, Y. E. On some aspects of reclassification of complicity in court // Society and Law. – 2017. – № 3(61). – С. 35-39.
3. Cassation Definition of the Judicial Collegium on criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from February 17, 2009 № 5-O09-18 [Electronic resource] // Reference legal system “ConsultantPlus”.
4. Determination of the court of cassation instance in case № 5-UD15-82 of January 19, 2016. [Electronic resource] – URL: https://www.zakonrf.info (date of circulation: 28.04.2024)
5. Petrushenkov, A. N. Effectiveness of norms on accomplices of crimes in the formation of the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation // Gaps in Russian legislation. – 2015. – № 2. – С. 1-8.
6. Yani, P. S. Problems of understanding complicity in judicial practice // Legality. – 2013. – № 7(945). – С. 45-48.