Falsehood is recognized as an integral part of human communications, a unique phenomenon of social reality and socio-cultural traditions. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not specify the concept of the sign “other illegal actions” as a way of committing coercion to testify, and this concept is not disclosed in criminal proceedings either. An overly broad interpretation of this feature found in scientific literature makes it difficult to correctly apply the norms of the Criminal Law. In this regard, the article examines the psychological signs of deception and the possibility of recognizing it as one of the methods of coercion to testify. Based on the psychological and legal analysis of the materials of the judicial and investigative practice, it was concluded that deception cannot be related to other illegal acts of forcing to give evidence, since this method of pressure from the interrogator always allows the interrogated to think over the proposals put forward and make a conscious choice, that is, when deceiving, there is no effect on the freedom of expression of the will of the defendant. In the event that information is received that the interrogators are receiving confessions using deception, the issue of bringing these persons to disciplinary responsibility should be resolved.

No abstract

The article discusses issues related to the functioning of an organized criminal community in the Soviet and modern Russian state. The process of criminalization of Russian society after the collapse of the USSR is traced. In order to weaken the criminal influence on law-abiding citizens, especially young people, it is very important to suppress the propaganda of the “romance” of a criminal lifestyle in the media. Modern Russian society needs works, television programs, and films that would show what colossal harm the criminal bosses and leaders of criminal groups and their followers inflict on the people; how, drawing into the orbit of their influence, they morally cripple adolescents and youth; the tragedy of a person who has bought on the “romance” of the underworld. Without significant support from the media, the efforts of law enforcement agencies in confronting the underworld will be useless. The initiative put forward by the president of the country will undoubtedly entail an intensification of the struggle against the leaders in the criminal hierarchy. However, it will hardly be possible to suppress organized crime with the help of criminal law measures alone. For these purposes, it is also necessary to widely use the experience of applying organizational and preventive measures used in different years in the fight against the criminal community.

Due to their psychophysiology, minors need special protection, including that by penal law. However, it took long before this approach paved its legal way. The norms aimed at protecting children and adolescents from being involved in actions posing danger to their lives appeared in domestic legislation with the adoption of the Code on Penal and Correctional Punishments in 1845 and were not initially separated from the norms designed to protect health and morality of minors. Of course, Russia had previously taken measures for legal protection of minors. The origins of activities to work with children negatively influenced by adults go back to Old Russia, when some attempts were made to “correct and re-educate morally corrupted children.” However, all those measures concerned primarily orphans. With the emerging Russian statehood took care about orphans, their upbringing and re-education. The first state institutions for orphans appeared during the reign of Ivan Grozny (the Terrible).

The article focuses on the formation and development of the detachment (otryad) system for the maintenance of convicts. The author discusses the specificity of the organizational structure and its functioning of correctional institutions of the USSR and Russia. The structure of labour associations of prisoners, which was used during the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal, had significant shortcomings: many convicts, who did not belong to workers and peasants, found themselves outside the educational influence. Therefore, labour associations, which played a positive role at a certain stage, were substituted with construction teams and labour colonies as more progressive organizational structures. The detachment consisted of brigades and included 300-600 people, depending on the production type, scope of work, and available living space. The head of the detachment was appointed from among the prisoners of the detachment and, in case of release, had the right to remain in this position for free employment. The newly arrived prisoners were to undergo the sanitation and quarantine, after which they were enlisted in the existing detachments or formed new ones. The head of the detachment was the assistant foreman for the organization of labour and the deployment of the workforce. This person managed the detachment with the help of an assistant chief for everyday life (also a supply manager), two educators (a senior and a regular educator for a detachment of more than 400 people), a senior worker and supervisors. The detachment had its own household services within a special staff.