Part 3 of article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the common criteria of individualization of punishment the nature and degree of public danger of committed crime in each criminal case. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal practice of this provision, as well as the construction of clarification on the issue of taking into consideration the public danger, which will be useful for the judiciary. For this purpose the author supposes to solve following problems: analysis of dogmatic ideas about the nature and degree of public danger; search for factors that courts consider in determining public danger in judicial practice; analysis of the survey data of judges from different regions of the country. As a result the author concludes that the nature of public danger depends on the object of the offense and cannot influence on individualization of punishment, because it was considered by the legislator when constructing the corresponding article of the Special Part and therefore should be excluded from Part 3 of art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Degree of public danger when individualizing is determined subject to the objective and subjective elements of a crime. The author proposed to make recommendations on considering into account degree of public danger in the judgment 22.12.2015 No. 58 adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On practice of criminal sentencing by courts of the Russian Federation”.
individualization of punishment, individualization of the criteria, the nature of public danger, the degree of public danger.
1. Bazhanov M. I. Naznachenie nakazaniya po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu. Kiev, 1980.
2. Blagov E. V. Primenenie obshchikh nachal naznacheniya ugolovnogo nakazaniya: monografiya. M., 2013.
3. Dagel´ P. S. Problema viny v sovetskom ugolovnom prave. Uchen. zap. Dal´nevostochnogo un-ta. Vladivostok, 1968.
4. Kurs ugolovnogo prava. Obshchaya chast´. T. 1: Uchenie o prestuplenii / pod red. N. F. Kuznetsovoy, I. M. Tyazhkovoy. M., 2002.
5. Lopashenko N. A. Posyagatel´stva na sobstvennost´: monografiya. M., 2012.
6. Nepomnyashchaya T. V. Naznachenie ugolovnogo nakazaniya: teoriya, praktika, perspektivy. SPb., 2006.
7. Renneberg I. Ob´´ektivnaya storona prestupleniya. Per. s nem. / pod red. A. A. Piontkovskogo. M., 1957.
8. Skryabin M. A. Obshchie nachala naznacheniya nakazaniy i ikh primenenie k nesovershennoletnim. Kazan´, 1988.
9. Shilovskiy S. V. Sposob soversheniya prestupleniya kak priznak ugolovno-nakazuemogo deyaniya i differentsiruyushchee sredstvo: dis.... kand. yurid. nauk. Arkhangel´sk, 2014.
10. Entsiklopediya ugolovnogo prava: naznachenie nakazaniya. T. 9. SPb., 2007.
11. Entsiklopediya ugolovnogo prava: sostav prestupleniya. T. 4. SPb., 2005.
