Hooligan motivation as a means of differentiation of criminal responsibility

In modern criminal law theory, there is no consensus on the optimal and necessary number of means of differentiating of criminal responsibility. Therefore, lists of types of qualifying signs and circumstances aggravating punishment are still in the process of being formed. Hooligan motives are fairly common motive for committing a crime, but so far it has not been considered as one of the aggravating circumstances, which creates conditions for deviation from the principle of justice when imposing punishment for a committed crime. The purpose of the study is to substantiate the recognition of a crime committed from hooligan motives as an aggravating circumstance. The recognition of a hooligan motive as an aggravating circumstance will allow systematizing its use as both a qualifying feature of certain elements of crimes and a circumstance, the establishment of which implies an increase in the severity of the chosen measures of criminal responsibility. This will contribute to the issuance of fair judicial decisions. It is proved that any crime committed out of hooligan motives is characterized by an increased degree of public danger. If the corpus delicti does not include hooligan motives as a qualifying feature, then this motive should be taken into account when sentencing. The results of the study can be used for research in the field of means of differentiation and individualization of criminal liability. The rationale presented in the work can be taken into account when preparing a draft law on supplementing Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of Russia (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) is another aggravating circumstance. 

1. Egorova T.I. (2021) Spravedlivost' nakazanija: teoreticheskij format i pravoprimenitel'naja praktika // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo. T. 12. Vyp. 4. P. 984–1002. (In Russian).

2. Chanhaj Lun. (2020) Problemu ugolovno-pravyh sankcij v Kitae: sovremennoe sostojanie i perspektivy razvitija // Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo. V. 11. Vyp. 1. P. 173–179. (In Russian).

3. Kruglikov L.L. (2017) Otjagchajushhie obstojatel'stva kak ogranichitel'noe sredstvo v rossijskom ugolovnom prave // Aktual'nye problemy ugolovnogo prava na sovremennom jetape (voprosy differenciacii otvetstvennosti i zakonodatel'noj tehniki). No. 6. P. 3–12. (In Russian).

4. Gal'perin I.M., Minskaja V.S., Oreshkina T.Ju. (1986) Ugolovnaja otvetstvennost' za krazhu lichnogo imushhestva s proniknoveniem v zhilishhe. M.: Vsesojuz. in-t po izuch. prichin i razrab. mer preduprezhdenija prestupnosti, 23 p. (In Russian).

5. Rusakova T.P. (1989) Puti dal'nejshego sovershenstvovanija sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava // Aktual'nye voprosy pravovedenija v period sovershenstvovanija socialisticheskogo obshhestva. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tom. un-ta. P. 181–182. (In Russian).

6. Vojtjuk O.M. (2009) Ugolovno-pravovye sposoby uzhestochenija nakazanija / Avtoref. dis.... kand. jurid. nauk. Tjumen', 26 p. (In Russian).

7. Poltavec V.V. (2023) Obstojatel'stva, smjagchajushhie i otjagchajushhie nakazanie v sisteme obshhih nachal naznachenija nakazanija // Vtoroj Jaroslavskij juridicheskij forum: sbornik nauchnyh statej po voprosam protivodejstvija prestupnosti (Jaroslavl', 30 sentjabrja-1 oktjabrja 2022 g.). Jaroslavl'. P. 230–234. (In Russian).

8. Pilipenko S.P. (2007) Institut obstojatel'stv, otjagchajushhih nakazanie, v ugolovnom zakonodatel'stve (teoretiko-prikladnoj analiz) / Avtoref. dis. … kand. jur. nauk. N. Novgorod, 31 p. (In Russian).

9. Lesnievski-Kostareva T.A. (2000) Differenciacija ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti. Teorija i zakonodatel'naja praktika. M.: Norma, 400 p. (In Russian).

10. Krotov S.E. (2005) Differenciacija ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti v zavisimosti ot kategorizacii prestuplenij, kvalificirujushhih priznakov i obstojatel'stv, otjagchajushhih nakazanie / Avtoref. dis. ... kand. jurid. nauk. M., 22 p. (In Russian).

11. Masalitina I.V. (2021) Sudimost' za prestuplenija, sovershennye v vozraste do vosemnadcati let // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo. No. 39. P. 60–68. (In Russian).

12. Kaplin M.N. (2001) Sushhnost' differenciacii ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti // Jurid. zap. JarGU im P.G. Demidova. Jaroslavl': Jarosl. un-t. Vyp. 5. P. 178–182. (In Russian).

13. Rogova E.V. (2014) Uchenie o differenciacii ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti / Dis. … d-ra jurid. nauk. M., 596 p. (In Russian).

14. Vasil'evskij A.V. (2000) Differenciacija otvetstvennosti i nakazanija v Obshhej chasti ugolovnogo prava / Dis.… kand. jurid. nauk. Jaroslavl', 219 p. (In Russian).

15. Solov'ev O.G., Il'in A.A. (2011) O sredstvah differenciacii ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti v Obshhej i Osobennoj chasti UK RF // Vestnik JarGU. Serija Gumanitarnye nauki. No. 3. P. 70–73. (In Russian).