The article is dedicated to the memory of a famous scientist and teacher, Doctor of Law, Professor N.I. Trofimov, who would have turned 90 years old in 2018. A native Siberian born in a peasant family, he transitioned from a school teacher to a Doctor of Law, Professor, Dean of the Law Faculty of Irkutsk State University and Head of the Chair of Criminal Law. He successfully defended his Ph.D. thesis, and later his doctoral dissertation at M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University. N.I. Trofimov had been engaged in research and teaching for over 40 years, he read courses of Criminal Law, Criminology and special courses. His numerous articles and monographs, reviews and textbooks were devoted to topical problems, mainly, the criminal and legal protection of the mental and physical development of minors. He researched such topics as the general concept of crime against the normal development of minors, encroachments on the development of minors, including their involvement in criminal and other anti-social activities, sexual abuse, coercion to common law marriage of persons under the marriageable age; he analyzed data on the identity of convicts and victims in cases of non-violent sexual crimes against minors. N.I. Trofimov responded promptly to important social and political events in the life of the country, giving them a legal assessment, and made proposals for improving criminal legislation. He is the author and contributing author of about 100 research, methodological and educational publications. He proved himself to be an experienced administrator who made a great contribution to the development of higher legal education in Eastern Siberia. The study of key problems of criminal law and criminology, started by N.I. Trofimov, has been continued by modern Russian and foreign researchers.

Ключевые словаЖрецы; старейшины; общеплеменное собрание; судоговорение; законоговоритель; соприсяжники Аннотация. С позиций конкретно-исторического и структурно-сопоставительного методов исследования рассматриваются базовые основы судопроизводства древних германцев эпохи догосударственного строя. Формы реализации обычного права древнегерманских племен эпохи, предшествующей образованию первых варварских королевств, находятся в непосредственной взаимосвязи с общественно-политическими и культурно-религиозными основаниями уголовно-правового генезиса и являются первым опытом противодействия преступности. Судебные функции и функции исполнения наказаний у древних германцев, в зависимости от уровня конфликта и вида социально-структурной единицы общества, принадлежат соответственно и хронологически жрецам, старейшинам, вождям племен или отцам семейств. Первоначально такие народные суды первичной формации осуществляли свою деятельность исключительно на базовой идее примирения, чередуя собственно судебные функции с функциями посредническими. Позже раннегосударственная власть постепенно форматирует процесс осуществления правосудия, порицая преступника и удовлетворяя уже не только потерпевшего, но и публичную власть. Древнегерманское уголовное судопроизводство глубоко символично. Судебные ритуалы осуществляются в строго определенном месте и в четко установленное время, изначально, очевидно, реализуя божественную волю. Но суд божий вполне коррелировал с судом земным, который также достигал целей справедливости, а его вершители материально вознаграждались. На смену идейным и родовым правителям, сочетавшим судебные функции с управленческими, постепенно приходят профессиональные судьи. Судебное разбирательство у древних германцев, так же как и у многих других народов Европы, проникнуто принципами родовой взаимопомощи, круговой поруки, порождающими систему совместных платежейвергельдов и институт соприсяжничества, что опять-таки основано на взаимном внутриобщинном доверии. Принципы судоговорения базировались на априорной вере в искренность слов истца и ответчика, если они являлись этническими германцами, свободными по происхождению. Именно эта вера привела к появлению идеи состязательности в судебном процессе древних германцев. Система судебных доказательств у них была достаточно объемной. В ряде случаев судебному приговору придавался статус закона.

A study of the joint commission of a crime as a legal phenomenon, which is enshrined in the written legislative acts of the first state formations of the Ancient East and some states of the era of antiquity, is carried out. The article considers the norms of a criminal-legal nature, which include certain provisions concerning the joint commission of a crime. Analyzed the basic laws of Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, India, China and Japan, Greece and Rome. The analysis was made of the norms of a criminal-legal nature, in which provisions on joint infliction of harm are mentioned in one way or another. Possible types of joint commission of a crime and persons jointly participating in the commission of unlawful acts, the grounds and limits of criminal responsibility, types of group entities within which crimes are jointly committed have been established. A number of theoretical provisions have been identified and systematized, reflecting the criminal law views of the legislators of the Ancient East and Antiquity on the socially dangerous nature and harmfulness of the joint crime. It is determined that the ancient oriental and ancient legislators consolidate the first provisions concerning the joint commission of a crime casuistically, that is, fixing specific cases in the “body” of the norms; in the legislation such structures of crime are fixed, the commission of which alone seems either unlikely or impossible; Among the possible types of joint commission of a crime, the legislator pays more attention to the implication, expressed in concealment, non-reporting or connivance. It is argued that this is due to the excellent degree of public danger of such cases, since it is they that create the determination in others to commit a crime.

The paper studies crimes against justice in the era of the absolute monarchy of Russia - from the beginning of the XIX century to 1917. The subject of the study is the legislative acts of the Russian state, both containing the norms of the criminal law character dedicated to the protection of the interests of justice, and the actual criminal laws and draft criminal laws that have an independent (autonomous) character. The research methodology was based on specific historical and comparative (comparative-legal) approaches to the legal nature of the institution of joint infliction of harm. The general inductive method is based on the formation of conclusions, which allows us to approach the general principles of the legislative formalization of the institution of joint commission of a crime from particular (casuistic) legislative fragments. In the course of the study, a number of theoretical propositions were identified and systematized. The era of absolute monarchy in Russia, associated with the name of Peter I, is characterized by the beginning of the processes of renewal in criminal legislation. Conceptual approaches to the consolidation of normative material are changing, and the methodology for building norms is being improved. In fact, general provisions are beginning to be formed to the extent necessary for the normal process of law enforcement, although there is still no structural separation. The criminal-legal terminology is changing. The influence of foreign legislation on Russian national criminal law is also undeniable. A serious impetus for changing the conceptual approach to the registration of crimes against justice is the emergence of new legislative acts in the field of criminal procedure regulation. Nevertheless, the criminal law reform carried out over two centuries did not achieve certain general and specific goals, including the full systematization of criminal encroachments on the interests of justice in the Russian Empire.

The article analyzes the Soviet criminal laws containing criminal attacks against justice. Starting with the Decrees of the Council of People’s Commissars and ending with criminal codes, the Soviet legislator is trying to create a system of crimes that violate the interests of justice. The doctrinal views of scientists on the essence and types of various criminal manifestations that encroach on the foundations of judicial and public power in the Soviet state are presented. The research methodology was made up of specific historical and comparative (comparative legal) approaches to the legal nature of the institution of crimes against justice. The basis for the formation of conclusions is a general inductive method, which allows from private (casuistic) legislative fragments to come closer to the general principles of legislative registration of the protection of the interests of justice. In the course of the study, a number of theoretical propositions were identified and systematized. Particular attention is paid to the 1960 Criminal Code of the RSFSR, in which, for the first time in the history of Russian criminal legislation, all crimes against justice were collected together in one chapter and systematized. The authors suggested that a kind of “inertia of legislation” in the issue of legislative regulation of crimes against justice in the first years of Soviet power is explained by the general approach to judicial and public power as a faceless part of the mechanism of state administration. And only over the years does a fundamentally different approach to the protection of public relations in the sphere of justice begin to take shape.