The problems of qualification of a newborn child murder by his mother
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The article is devoted to the controversial issue of qualification of mother’s actions as a special subject committing a newborn child murder and the ways of the decision of this problem Key words: criminal-law protection of human life, problems of qualification of a Newborn Child Murder by his Mother.The safety of personality is the priority direction of criminal and legal policy in Russia. At the same time, the criminal legislation putting life and health of the citi -zens in the forefront establishes unreasonably soft pun-ishment for a newborn child murder by his mother that doesn’t correspond to modern conditions of the Russian reality at all.The separate crime structure providing liability for a newborn child murder by his mother for the first time was allocated in the Criminal Code of the Russian Fed-eration of 1996. Till the specified moment this act was considered as a simple or a qualified murder.The regulation of the liability for infanticide has an ambiguous character abroad. So criminal legislation of England, Canada, Austria, Lithuania [1], Poland, Ukraine [2], Switzerland, Australia [3, 55–56] refers newborn child murder by his mother to the crimes with exclusive structure. A number of countries which had historical experience of application of the specified norm (Germany, a number of states in the USA, Spain, China [4], Japan [5], France) have refused it now and referred the specified act to a simple type of murder [6, 16]. It seems that thereby the criminal legislator of the called countries has pursued the aim to equal the value of hu-man life and of the one of a newborn child.Let’s consider debatable questions of qualification of mother’s actions as the special subject committing a newborn child murder.One of the controversial questions in the theory of criminal law is the subject structure of infanticide. The liability according to Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation comes from 16- year age. Crimi -nological researches in their turn testify to a tendency of rejuvenation of crime of minors. According to this, a question of criminal liability of the women who haven’t reached 16- year age appeares in practice. Thus, the posi -tion of the legislator who puts the newborn’s value of life below the adult’s one establishing liability for sim-ple murder from 14-year age is unclear. There are vari-ous points of view concerning a being of the matter in the theory of criminal law. According to S. M. Milyukov the legislator handicapped 14–15year-old murderers’ -situation extremely in comparison with more senior but full age people (In Russia young people who have reached the age of 18 are considered full age people) by such decision. Milyukov comes to such a conclusion because he considers it necessary to bring the minors who haven’t reached the age of 16 years to trial under the article providing liability for a simple murder (Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) [7, 111–112]. E.B. Kurguzkina is of the similar opin-ion considering that the person who hasn’t reached the age of 16 bears liability according to the general norm [6, 189]. S.V.Tasakov, A. N.Krasikov, L. I.Murzina adhere to the opposite point of view. The specified group of authors considers that the mother who hasn’t reached the age of 16 isn’t the subject of criminal li-ability. ThusL.I. Murzina motivates her point of view with the idea that the criminal prosecution of people who haven’t reached the age of 16 is unfair because only a mature person possessing at least the minimum life experience can make a correct decision. Besides, cases of childbirth occur extremely seldom at this age as for girls are under control by various institutions of social -ization (a family, a school) [7, 111–112]. L. I. Murzina’s point of view doesn’t seem to be reasonable as first the concept of a mature person has an estimated character and secondly statistical data testify to decrease the age of criminal liability also according to Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".